Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 May 24

= May 24 =

Create new language for articles: Arabizi
Arabizi is a romanised version of the arabic script. Many Arabic speakers across the world use this method to communicate in dialect across social media, IM etc. Having wikipedia articles in this form of the script may be beneficial or helpful to those who aren't as familiar with reading arabic, but know the spoken language as most people only understand the formal version (MSA) and cannot really communicate in it.

Arabizi wikipedia would provide an alternative for people who prefer to read their articles in Arabic. The original Arabic and Masri wikipedias could still be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamran translator (talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a venue for requesting wikipedias in new languages, but it isn't here. This looks like the place:  meta:Requests for new languages.  I'm fairly doubtful that this will be approved; it might have been in 2004, but the culture has changed.  But you can always try. --Trovatore (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for reference: Arabizi Rojomoke (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This would be quite complicated: there does not appear to be a single version of this, but considerable variation across the Arabic speaking world depending on local dialects. 86.131.28.46 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The word either: should it only precede a list of two items? Or can it precede three or more items?
To be grammatically proper (and correct), is the word either supposed to be limited to just two items? Or can you use it with more than two items? Example "A" (2 items): With that dinner, you can get either a salad or a cup of soup.   Example "B" (3 items):  With that dinner, you can get either a salad, a cup of soup, or an appetizer.  Is Example "B" grammatically correct, in using the word either with more than two items? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The dictionary says: "Used before the first of two (or occasionally more) given alternatives (the other being introduced by ‘or’)". --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Either" originally referred to only two entities, but as noted it has come to be used with lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * But is that correct? And grammatically acceptable?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's another dictionary quote. You want entry 3 (conjunction). It gives an example with three choices and does not say that that use is incorrect. You may want to check other dictionaries in the library of your university, just to be sure. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Tell us which source you choose to regard as authoritative,, and we can look it up there and tell you if it is correct. There is no ultimate authority. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your reply? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying, "What source would you regard as the most authoritative?" being as how there seems to be more than one answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I have no idea which source is more authoritative.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And ColinFine's further point is that if there is no absolute authority on a given point, then it's OK. "Either" can be used for lists of size larger than two. Personal opinion: If more than two, leave out the "either". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Right. And that's why I asked the question in the first place.  Without having asked the question, how would one know the answer?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * But if you agree that there is no absolute authority, whose answer are you asking for? --69.159.60.83 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I asked the question because I didn't know the answer to the question. What's hard to understand?  Is that not the point of these Reference Desks?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer is that either one is acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

At my disposal/at my disposition
The sentences:

"I have 150,000 dollars at my disposition to buy a house." "Mr Smith is at your disposal for any question." "I remain at your disposition for any questions (end of letter)" "I am at your disposal for any questions"

make me wonder if "at my disposition" is for things, and "at my disposal" is for people who available for any incidence.

Or, are both interchangeable?--Llaanngg (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Which definition of "disposition" are you using?—Wavelength (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Disposition" means attitude, character, or arrangement, and is wrong for the meaning "available". I have $10,000 at my disposal, Savannah cats have a dog-like disposition. You really should just try googling "define X" to get such answers. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure you are right on this one. Wavelength's link brings us this example: "You will have full disposition of these funds.‎ " Isn't this = "available"?Llaanngg (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In that example, the noun "disposition" means "control". The word "available" is an adjective.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Both words have a fairly wide range of meanings, but in the context of this question I (as a well-educated Englishman) would certainly understand them as being synonymous. 86.131.28.46 (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please provide a sentence in which "disposition" can be replaced by "available".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I got one, Wavelength, here it is: "Please provide a sentence in which "available" can be replaced by "disposition".Llaanngg (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "You will have full disposition of these funds." means that the funds will be made available to [you] for disposal as you see fit. Akld guy (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please provide a sentence in which "disposition" can be replaced by "available", with no other change to the sentence, and with no change to the meaning of the sentence. (That is what I meant at 16:16, 26 May 2016 [UTC].)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is one, and I don't think that was what was meant by the well-educated Englishman. I think the claim was that e.g. "Smith is at your disposal for questions" is synonymous with "Smith is available for questions", which is I think an uncontentious assertion. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Llaanngg provided you with a sentence where 'available' replaced 'disposition' without changing the meaning of the sentence (if 'available' can be replaced by 'disposition', then the reverse holds through the commutative property, meaning that 'disposition' can be replaced by 'available'; thus meaning is retained). However, you are correct that in Llaanngg's example, for that meaning to hold, not only must 'available' be replaced with 'disposition', but 'disposition' must be replaced with 'available', therefore it fails your original implication that meaning must be retained only through simple replacement of 'available' with 'disposition' or 'disposition' with 'available', but not both (i.e., "with no other change to the sentence"). I think a better way to obviate the logical ambiguity exploited by Llaanngg, albeit humorously, is to request a sentence where the words 'disposition' or 'available' are used, as opposed to simply mentioned, in such a way as to preserve meaning (use-mention distinction). E.g. "that dog is fierce and rabid, surely candidate for a rabbit" vs "that canine is fierce and rabid, surely candidate for a rabbit." What do you think?  JordanGero (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)