Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 April 27

= April 27 =

A Commons root
babies could be called children? Or child means older than a baby? I'm looking for a root for both category:paintings as a baby and category:paintings as a boy. Now boys and babies are under children? Thanks--Pierpao (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Look for everything you can think of. Since the categories are created by humans, anything is possible. As for the term "children", it's often used to mean anything under age 18, but parents will refer to their offspring as "children" regardless of age. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what exactly you're looking for – but there is c:Category:Paintings of babies which is a subcategory of c:Category:Paintings of children. For a concrete case, there is c:Category:Paintings of Jesus Christ as a baby, a subcategory of c:Category:Paintings of Jesus Christ as a child (although they're probably redundant). As Baseball Bugs said, all sorts of odd setups are possible, because those categories are created by humans, with different backgrounds and different command of English and categorization principles. No such user (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, that c:Category:Paintings of Jesus Christ as a child painting from Silesia (first in the Media section) is some seriously bad art. Jesus has absurdly long toes, with what looks like rolls of baby fat, but which is inconsistent with the height and proportions of the child, making him seem far older.  He also seems to be using some kind of walking frame, designed for those who can't yet balance, again incompatible with his height and proportions.  Then the angels for some reason have black wings (maybe dark red and green), and the Madonna appears to have male pattern baldness setting in. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (ot) It's a medieval painting StuRat. Not one of the best indeed.--Pierpao (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe there's a reason the "artist" didn't sign that one. :-) But it does make me appreciate the Renaissance masters even more. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No-one has ever clearly defined when a baby ceases to be a baby: development is a process rather than an event, so cannot easily be pinned down to a certain moment. You could argue that as the next category up is often called a toddler, the ability to walk on two legs is a key moment. However, parents may well continue to call a child (especially the youngest) their baby for long after that. There is a legal definition of a child, based on the age of majority (18 in most places, but not all). However, child also indicates a relationship: I am still my mother's child, even though I am 65 and she is 100. You could say that all babies are children, but not all children are babies. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note also the different usage of the word "infant" between US English and UK English. The American infant is generally in pre-toddler stage, i.e. not yet walking. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's interesting, and a bit strange, that many contemporary news reports referred to the Lindbergh child as a baby, when he was in fact 20 months old. Akld guy (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You could say abduction implicitly implies a change of statute, sort of. Besides the full sized toddler will have accomplished a number of feats improbable for one who was at most two month in the trade when notoriety came, probably distracting him from works. --80.185.79.139 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Implicitly implies. A nice turn of phrase. I didn't understand anything you said after "two month". Akld guy (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. I did not remember precisely the whole story, I would have formulated it very differently otherwise. I'm very sorry. But the article you linked to says the child was pinned and wrapped, this sounds very baby-like in any event. --80.185.79.139 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you alll. Kind regards--Pierpao (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've heard of the Infante Dom Henrique, but checking his biography it appears the word simply means "prince".  In English the word "babe" can be applied to anyone.   The "Infant Relief Act" applies to anyone under the age of eighteen, and says that only contracts for "necessaries" can be enforced against them.   Before the law changed, my sister signed a contract to rent a house but then pulled out.   The landlord either threatened to or did take her to court, so she pointed out that she was only 20 when she signed and the case went no further. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Besides Turkish (and maybe Azeri) and Modern Hebrew, are there other languages whose word for "and" is pronounced [ve]?
185.3.147.174 (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Link to Wiktionary: and. Note that ve/va in Middle Eastern languages is an Arabism.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to your link, I've realized that Turkish (and maybe Azeri) and Modern Hebrew, are the only (known) languages with the word [ve] meaning "and". Thanks a lot.
 * Btw, I don't know why you think "ve / va" is an Arabism, while Arabic has no such a word (It only has "wa", while "ve / va" in Modern Hebrew derives from "wə / wa" in Ancient Hebrew, rather than from "wa" in Arabic). 185.3.147.174 (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant non-Semitic languages, I though it was obvious. Of course, in both Hebrew and Arabic this is a Proto-Semitic and even a Proto-Afroasiatic word.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And the reason is simple: Arabic has been the main source of loanwords for Muslims for centuries, especially of learned words. If you look at the translation list more closely you'll notice the less Islamic influence the less chance this word is loaned.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the Farsi, Tajik, Uzbek, Marathi and Newari translations of the conjunction are all pronounced [va] -- which is one of the several pronunciation variants of the Hebrew conjunction, depending on the phonetic context. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Complete vs. completed
I always am unsure about the fact that English has 2 adjectives looking very similar for "finished":

1. Our task (testing this new application) is complete.

2. Our task (testing this new application) is completed.

According to Wiktionary, they both can mean finished, but "Complete (Adj)" has many more meanings.

If there any nuance between the 2 sentences above? Also is there any general or regional preference from those native speakers here? Many thanks. --Lgriot (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Our task is completed means that the task is completed by somebody (e.g. "Our weekly task is usually started by me and is completed by my elder brother"), whereas Our task is complete just means that no additions are still needed for its completeness. You cannot say "Our task is complete by" somebody.
 * The difference is very similar to the one between "is opened" and "is open". e.g. "The door is opened by me", not "The door is open by me". HOTmag (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Both adjectives are from the verb - and in line with the present and past tenses of that verb suggest slightly different things. To me, "complete" describes the present state of something, while "completed" suggests a past process which has now ended. 16:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)81.132.106.10 (talk)


 * Yes, I would say "is complete" or "has been completed" / "was completed". StuRat (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Or "will be completed", or "is being completed". The latter is very different from "is complete"! -- Q Chris (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In the case of a jigsaw puzzle (or anything with many parts), "is complete" may just mean that all of the parts are present, while "has been completed", means it is fully assembled (or as fully as is possible, if some pieces are missing) or otherwise finished (like a coat of paint on a piece of furniture). StuRat (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur that there are subtle differences. "Completed" indicates some action, such as completed by someone, possibly on some particular date. "Complete" in this sense indicates a state of being. Those subtleties also square with StuRat's example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So you actually repeat my claim, don't you? HOTmag (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can say that again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who? Me? HOTmag (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all --Lgriot (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In "The task is (or has been) completed by me", "completed" is a past participle (a verb form), not an adjective. "Complete" is an adjective: "The task is complete". But "completed" can also be used as an adjective (actually an adjectival participle): "It is a completed task" = "It is a task that has been completed". Loraof (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The task is completed by me" sounds wrong, to me. I would say "The task is completed" or "The task has been completed by me". StuRat (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason it sounds wrong is that it's passive voice. "I have completed the task" is better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it has more to do with present and past tense. It might be OK if I said "In this video, the task is completed by me." StuRat (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 'It sounds wrong' is what people say when they want to say 'it's wrong' but they know it's grammatically right. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * It's not grammatically wrong. It's just that active voice generally sounds better than passive voice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, I've come to the conclusion 'sounds worse/better' usually just reflects the conservatism of the person saying that rather than an objective criticism. It is generally more ethical to use as many 'wrong-sounding' structures as possible, so to broaden people's horizons -- to fill lexical gaps, to convert and so on. (In fact, conversion is an example of gap-filling.) ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * Various English teachers that I've had, disagree with your assertion. The point of language is to communicate. And active voice generally communicates better than passive voice. Optimal communication is optimally ethical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is because both you and they have never heard of the principle of ceteris paribus. Effectiveness of communication being equal, it is better to speak in an unusual way than in a usual way. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * "All other things being equal", active voice is generally better than passive voice. Speaking in an "unusual" way, just for the sake of doing it, is not necessarily better communication. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both your claims in this reply (passive voice being easier to parse than active voice and unusualness at times coming with ineffectiveness) are true, but irrelevant, unrelated to my points. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * Then why did you bring it up? Also, why are enclosing your four tildes in "nowiki"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 14:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Because *my* points were related to what had been said. Also, for the same reason you didn't sign your above message -- I prefer to remain anonymous. Identity is irrelevant in discussion as well. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)


 * Zsa Zsa Gabor has the final word: A man is not complete until he marries.  After that he's finished.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Going by that, she has "finished" nine men all by herself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems Zsa Zsa is not the only ultimoverbalist here. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Style guides, stacked punctuation
Hello, I recently typed the string 'etc.).' on the science desk (here if you want the context). Does anyone know of any style guide that addresses this issue of abbreviation-delimiter-period? It felt rather awkward and bad in the moment, but I didn't see any alternative that seemed less bad. I know re-writing is always an option, but I'd like to know if any of the extant style authorities have commented on this or similar circumstances. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's exactly correct, and not awkward. Your parenthetical is only part of the sentence, so you have to close the parentheses before the sentence-final period. And "etc" requires a period (at least in American English), and that period has to come immediately after it as part of the word ("etc."). Loraof (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's often omitted in modern British English; this style guide for the Guardian newspaper (a respected national broadsheet} says "etc: no full point", presumably meaning a full stop. The British Government Digital Service style guide says "eg, etc and ie: Don’t use full stops after or between these notations". Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * However, our Manual of Style/Abbreviations says: "If in doubt, or if the dot-less usage could be confusing in the context, use the stop." So you have done the right thing, in a Wikipedia context anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

International English
Hello everybody! I hope that somebody can help me about a great doubt: In a world where English language is spoken by almost everybody and, expecially, every culture has a very different way to express it, how can you tell a grammar mistake from a personalized way of talking English?--Freebird73 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Grammar mistakes are defined by the prescriptive rules of some standardized version of the language. Those standardized rules generally apply to a version spoken and written in a country that has a great many native speakers. Whether you choose to obey those rules is your own choice, although people will usually find it easier to understand you with minimal effort if you follow a standardized version. Loraof (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See also linguistic prescriptivism and linguistic descriptivism and A language is a dialect with an army and a navy (and note the last is a redirect, not a pipe ;) In other words, it depends on context, and what rule book you use, if any. One low bar to cross is that no utterance in a natural language is ungrammatical if it successfully communicates meaning from speaker to hearer. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunally, many people learn English just in a standardized version and that's why sometimes there are weird situations: People who told me that my Engish is very good and others who told me the opposite (Italians, in particular) and I feel confused about it; I think that none but native language speakers can judge the way of talking a foreing language.--Freebird73 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A grammar mistake is a violation of a ruleset determining right and wrong. As you rightly say, everyone has their own English, the majority of which just tend to be intelligible. Some individual Englishes (some individual rulesets) of some particular speakers can push a particular rule into or out of the majority's Englishes -- for instance, a famous person or a leader can, over the course of exposing others to their language, influence a whole inflection of a whole generation. In short, grammaticality exists only in your head, it is just subject to constant outside change. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.137.115 (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2016


 * If there's some variation, that doesn't mean that everything is random and every rule is up for grabs. I totally see why extreme culture relativism is appealing to some people Asmrulz (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's as unfair of you to ascribe lazy motivations to me, as though I were one of those folks on Wiktionary who point to descriptivisim to justify the inclusion of 'alot' in is, as it is wrong to include any sort of arbitrary distinction in one's definition of language, whereby some rules are fine to alter in time and some are stone-set and 'not up for grabs'. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * This was in reply to the OP (as you could tell by the indentation) who I felt was trying to make some "ah, but who's to tell what's really grammatical" type of point. I didn't mean anyone in particluar when I said "some people", but it's a fact that there are people who, instead of trying to meet standards, would rather dilute them (for example in religion vs science or conventional vs alternative medicine debates) Asmrulz (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The official version of any language is always that of the social class that holds power in any given culture. There is not a pre-ordained, absolute standard of "correctness" beyond "that which matches what is spoken by the power elite in a culture".  It isn't the kind of "correct" that is correct for mathematics (i.e. 1+1 = 2 vs. 1+1 = 3); markers for "incorrect" language is merely those things which lower social classes do which is different from upper social classes, such as zero copula in some varieties of English.  -- Jayron 32 12:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you replace 'holds power' with 'holds the IQ allowing them to master more grammar points (such as the copula point you mention, or, say, the proper past subjunctive) than the lower classes', which IQ incidentally also effects their being in power, you might be right. (In other words, your error there is equalizing the 'correct' and 'incorrect' variants of language instead of acknowledging the obvious that the latter reflects less linguistic ability.) ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * 1) There is no relationship between social class and IQ. 2) There is no relationship between gramatical complexity and "official" status of a language.  -- Jayron 32 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a direct relationship between your claims (1) and (2) and it is they're both false. The number of exceptions to memorize is obviously related to vernacularity of a language, and nobody denies the social validity of IQ anymore. Nobody even denies its heredity at this point. I wouldn't even know which keyword to first relate to IQ among those related to 'social status' so to find particular studies. In short, you were mistaken to hope that I wouldn't reply to this comment of yours. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * Per the basic concept of the burden of proof, one must default to the null hypothesis for any positive assertion. You have made the assertion that there is a relationship between social status and IQ.  Perhaps you'd care to provide those sources?  Also the same for the second statement.  -- Jayron 32 18:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the basic concept of haps, you will be satisfied with extrapolating the full extent of validity of IQ from our own modest article of cognitive epidemiology. As for the second statement, it's pointless because you're just going to link African American Vernacular English in reply, so to imply that a speech whose practical, everyday extent is cries such as 'you a policeman!' (so to quote the song 'Thela Hun Ginjeet' by King Crimson, coexistent on an album with a thesaural song 'Elephant Talk' -- look them both up, good music) is just as elaborate as literary English. Of course, that's nonsense -- even a barest dialect can be endlessly elaborated and dissected on should a political need arise to present it as sophisticated in its own way. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * Jayron, I'm not sure why you think there's no correlation between social class and IQ test scores. It's difficult to find trustworthy references because the subject is so politicized, but e.g. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns says that social class is positively correlated with total years of education, and total years of education with IQ scores, and it cites Waller (1971) which seems to show a causal influence of intelligence on upward class mobility.
 * 178.43.24.216, I'm not sure why you think AAVE grammar is simple, or why you think simpler grammars are associated with lower average IQ scores. Zero copula is found in the standard dialects of some languages, including Japanese (the only language besides English that I know well). Omitting the copula doesn't simplify the grammar; there are extra rules governing when it can be omitted. Standard Japanese actually does have an unusually simple grammar, which has led to speculation that it might have originated as a creole. AAVE's grammar isn't unusually simple, as far as I know. -- BenRG (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The ability to pass an arbitrary test may be correlated to social class, the capacity for a person to learn, or a person's native cognitive ability is not. -- Jayron 32 00:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And you know this how, exactly, Jayron? There are certainly plausible mechanisms that could provide such a correlation.  When social mobility exists, it would be natural to expect persons of higher general intelligence to be more able to take advantage of it.  To be sure, the claim that they are correlated requires evidence, but on the face of it, the correlation with IQ appears to be evidence.  You can certainly posit alternative explanations, and these may be enough to argue that the case is not yet proven.  However, to claim affirmatively that there is no correlation, surely some evidence must be requested of you. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IQ tests are in no way 'arbitrary'. There is no way for intelligence not to correlate with IQ/g unless you're grossly redefining the term 'intelligence' as infamous Gardner-tier 'bodily intelligences' and 'nature intelligences' populism. Not even the 'intelligence is culturally defined' fallacy holds water, because if a primitive tribe were to rank their members according to their idea of smartness, their choice would still correlate with IQ owing to g's ubiquity even in such tribes' activities such as hunting (effectiveness at them being g-loaded). There is simply no factor in existence whose validity catches a wider range of intellectual activities than IQ. Any you might think of either (1) doesn't catch some, (2) relates less to some of them, or (3) is actually just g under a different name. The only way for people to try to obscure IQ's validity is to play it off against a single life outcome, such as wealth, and claim the correlation isn't perfect, which is fallacious because g's impact is distributed across a range of such outcomes spanning from wealth to health in addition to intellectual pursuits. I'm beginning to feel concerned about your presence here on Wikipedia, and this is not a personal attack. You're just too ignorant while being too self-certain for it not to appear to be an agenda. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)
 * IQ tests perfectly correlate with a person's ability to pass the IQ test in question. All other correlations are suspect.  -- Jayron 32 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a 'suspect' correlation. That's a meaningless term and this is a bizarre bogeyman. Correlations of IQ are as solid as any other. You're just partaking in the popular, convenient misconception that if a correlation is 'unperfect', then it is somehow flawed or to be distrusted, which misconception then by and large tacitly quells any nagging conscience people might have that IQ is in fact an important life factor. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.158.233 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Intelligence is an important life factor. IQ is a grade on a test.  -- Jayron 32 17:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If that were an unfalsifiable claim, I would probably feel uncomfortable at this point. But thankfully, it's not. It's perfectly falsifiable. The fact that it has already objectively been found false is just the icing on the cake. (Nice manipulation you've debased yourself to committing there, by the way, attempting to connote that IQ's validity is relatively low while superficially merely pretending to remark that 'IQ test results can vary'. I wouldn't want to practice committing such, but hey, linguistic manipulation is conceivably a subfield of linguistics, and we *are* at the language desk after all.) ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.158.233 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well BenRG, I concede complexity of a language is nontrivial. But I think that things such as number of inflections, number of markers of grammatical categories (viz. e.g. this and this), idioms (not necessarily very visible, cf. idiomatic 'I should know!'), meanings of syntactic structures such as inversions, things such as, let's see, multiple negatives or syntactic expletives to learn to use, together give a good idea of the size of a language's grammar. The zero copula thing was just an example, and not even mine. In short, I think that if we took Google Translate's translation functions for particular languages, their SLOCs would correlate with the nations' IQs. The point is not to let the fact that, as I said, a grammar can be infinitely expanded to include increasingly dialectic, obscure exceptions cloud the general differences between languages. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.24.216 (talk • contribs)


 * We have an article on International English; I suggest you start at the section outlining the various concepts embodied in the term. Standard English, English as a lingua franca, and World Englishes may also be of interest. More than a century ago, the number of users of American English surpassed those of British English; the balance has tipped again, and there are more speakers of English as a foreign language than there are native speakers. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Inward and outward-facing circles of people
Is there a word for what you get when you arrange people into a circular formation, facing the middle? What about the other way? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Huddle? It's I suppose a sports metaphor and not a general term, but I think it would be intelligible for most AmEng speakers. Also consider "inwise" - you just have to respect compositional semantics and be a little cavalier about Bound_and_unbound_morphemes and neologism :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Huddle" is used in another context besides American football. From Emporer penguin: "As a defence against the cold, a colony of emperor penguins forms a compact huddle (also known as the turtle formation) ". Loraof (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Inwise' would make no sense even it were an improvement over the asker's own correct 'inward'. '-wise' goes with parametres, not with their values: we say 'speedwise' not 'fastwise' or 'slowwise'. The Latinate affix for direction seems to be '-al', cf. 'ventral' and others on which we seem to have an article. I would think of 'central circle' vs 'distal circle' or something if I could coin. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.137.115 (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2016
 * cf. clockwise or topwise :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean with the people standing around the circumference of an imaginary circle (rather than the penguin model which is a circular crowd), this is often used in Scouting, so that everyone can hear a briefing or watch a demonstration; we simply say "form a circle". There are a number of Scout games which can be played with the participants standing in a circle, these are called circle games. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Huddle" is good. I should've thought of that, in hindsight. Might not work for larger rings. "Medial" or "distal" are fine adjectives, if we're talking a circle of doctors. Sheltrons work for old soldiers. Thanks, everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For docs, how about an "exohuddle" or "endohuddle" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)