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

= September 27 =

Etymology of Slavic suffix -ow/-ov
What is the origin (and original meaning) of the Slavic town-name suffix represented in Polish by -ow (as in Cracow and perhaps Warsaw) and Russian by -ov as in Rostov and apparently Moskva/Moscow? Is this the same as Ukrainian -ev as in Chernigev, and perhaps ultimately names such as Khruschev, Brezhnev, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.70.126 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * -ow/-ov was and is a genitive ending, or possessive suffix. See -ов. —Stephen (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of Slavic suffixes -sk and -ski
What is the origin of the Slavic suffix -ski/-sky, as in surnames such as Sikorski? Could it be cognate with the Latin -iscus and/or English -ish, meaning "deriving from, related to, having to do with"? Also, is -ski related to the town-name suffix -sk, as in Gdansk and Murmansk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.70.126 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Cognate with English -ish, German -isch. See -ский. —Stephen (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's also cognate with the Greek -iskos. The Latin form -iscus (FR. -esque) is a supposedly backborrowing into Latin from Germanic.  In any case it is a widely attested PIE root. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of French ne ... pas?
For the French negative construction ne..pas, as in "n'est pas", the part "ne" is I assume a simple negative like "non", as expected from Latin forms, but what is the origin of the (apparently redundant) part "pas"? It translates as "not", and can be used alone as in "pas de tout", but does not have the same form as non/no/not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.70.126 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Check it out in Wiktionary. It means "step," and the construct "ne ... pas" comes directly from the Latin "nec ... passum," meaning, "not at all, not even one (little) step."—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Not a pace", I understand now, and I did not know Wiktionary had foreign words-- thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.70.182 (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While etymologically pas is redundant, as you say, it may be better for French learners to think of pas as the word meaning "not", and ne as being a redundant indication of a negative sentence. That helps when understanding or generating formulas like ne...rien, and ne...jamais, where the ne serves no strictly logical function, but is nevertheless required as a marker of a negative utterance. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right and that's in fact how French speakers see it because it is very common to just drop the ne informally (so no, it is not required in informal French but is in formal French and in writing unless you're specifically trying to suggest a colloquial register): J'ai rien fait (= I have done nothing (wrong)), J'ai pas faim (= I am not hungry), J'ai jamais de chance (= I'm always unlucky). That's why in combinations which belong to the written or formal register such as ne...point or ne...goutte you find that the ne is never dropped, although I might have heard something like J'y vois goutte (= I can't see anything) once or twice. Basemetal  18:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowadays it works as you say, but originally, the only negative French was "ne", without anything else after the verb. You can see that in all the old texts. Adding a "pas" or a "goutte" or a "jamais" or a "point" or a "guère" etc, was only done in case of adding a precision or a tournure de style. Nowadays it's the extra "pas" that is soon becoming the main French negative word, while the original "ne" seems to be slowly disappearing. Akseli9 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Many other things regarding French ne and French negatives could be added, as the question is quite complex (see for example here). Here are two additional points I think are worth adding (besides many others that would take too long): one, that ne can still be used as the only negative word on its own (very marginally) in a certain number of constructions both in the formal register, e.g. Il ne peut être question de nous arrêter (= it is out of the question that we stop) and in some colloquial constructions, e.g. Que personne ne bouge! (= let no one move!); and, two, at the opposite end of the spectrum, that there are a certain number of formal constructions which are not negative where ne is commonly used but with no discernible function whatsoever, such as avant qu'il ne revienne (= before he comes back) or plus malin qu'on ne croit (= more clever than you think). Basemetal  09:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't personne already a negative word (meaning "no one"), at least when used without an article? --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're absolutely right. Sorry. Ok then, que personne ne bouge! is therefore not an example since ne...personne was simply inverted. Note though that que personnne bouge! is very informal, I would say substandard. So at least in this case both ne and personne are still necessary. Well, there's the other one, but that one is formal. Let me see if I can come up with examples of ne used alone in the colloquial register... I couldn't. By way of compensation here are two oddities: t'inquiète! & t'occupe!. In both cases the meaning is negative but any last trace of any negative word has evaporated. Basemetal  21:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You may find Jespersen's Cycle of interest.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (Incidentally, why cycle? Things do not come round so it looks more like a sequence). Basemetal  09:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article says the whole process can begin again after renewal. HenryFlower 20:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Redundancy (linguistics). Languages have many features that express one idea in more than one way. I could belabour the point, but that might be redundant. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of name Gernsbacher
I'm unable to find a translation for the German name Gernsbacher. A possible meaning for Gern- is "branch", though I don't really see the relevance for a person's name. Arthurian legend includes a character named Vortigern, and I've seen the particle -gern used as a suffix for archaic names from a possibly Germanic context. Any suggestions of the meaning of Gernsbacher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.70.126 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See Vortigern Rojomoke (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gernsbacher is a derivative of Gernsbach using the suffix -er, meaning "man of Gernsbach". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The German article lists Genrespach as the earliest attested form. Assuming this is a typo or misreading for *Gernespach – which is plausible, as the former form would probably have yielded modern **Gennersbach instead – the first part could be the genitive of the personal name de:Gero (Vorname) (a masculine of the weak declension). This interpretation fits the date of the supposed establishment of the town in the 12th century, as the name was still in fashion around that time.
 * As for Vortigern, I don't see a connection there. That name seems to be Vor-tigern, not Vorti-gern, as attested by the other names with a tigern element listed in the linked section. --87.182.216.229 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymological explanations of names usually depend on the level of expertise in that field. If you like to discuss it in detail, there are four different names (or stages) involved.
 * 1) The first is the German surname "Gernsbacher". The surname may have formed in the New High German period and is a derivative of the place name "Gernsbach" using the suffix "-er", meaning "man of Gernsbach".
 * 2) The second is the place name "Gernsbach" (assuming Gernsbach to be the right one, which can only be proven after tedious genealogical research). The place name may have formed in the Middle High German period (when the place name was still "Genresbach", see Krieger's topographical dictionary of Baden col. 706) and is a derivative(unchanged in form) of a stream name "*Genresbach" and means "at the stream *Genresbach". The asterisk indicates that *Genresbach is a reconstructed form.
 * 3) The third is the stream name "*Genresbach". As usual the modern map of Gernsbach does not show that stream for the stream may have been renamed (by dissimilation) or it disappeared in the meanwhile completely in a tube under the main street. Tedious historical research will be necessary to establish the fate of that stream. The stream name may have formed in the Old High German period and is seemingly a composition of the given name "*Genr" and the general stream designation "Bach" and means "stream of *Genr".
 * 4) The fourth name or stage presents a difficulty: Krieger's topographical dictionary of Baden col. 708 assumes that the given name Genr or Gener is shortened from some name like Kakanher, Kainher or Kenher. Baumann (same reference) assumes some name like Genear, Gernhard or Ginheri, and finally Koebler writes "difficult, the personal name could be Genear or Genner".

--Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete epitaph on a gravestone
I tried googling this one, without any luck. I found an old gravestone, in such bad condition that the following poem was partly illegible:

Death has deprived me of a f[riend] Richard, kind and dear On whose advice I could depend [illegible]

I reconstructed the word "friend", of which only the first letter was legible. But e.g. "father" would not rhyme with "depend", and rhyming seems indicated here.

The poem was not necessarily unique or original to this gravestone. Anyone know a reference which could help me find the last line? (Maybe "To take away my fear", but that is just a guess.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.70.181 (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a photo of it? Then we could try and decipher it for ourselves. --Viennese Waltz 07:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Our sister project Wiktionary has a list of words that rhyme with dear. There are a lot of them - far too many to be able to be able to reconstruct that last line with any kind of confidence. Smurrayinchester 07:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a picture of it on findagrave.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I expect you discovered, the start is similar to the madrigal by Thomas Weelkes, but it's not the same poem. It might be a one-off just for that inscription.    D b f i r s   21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As the grave has been examined, a findagrave picture would probably reveal nothing new.  Is it possible to tell the length and number of words in the last line?   It might be something like
 * Perhaps: But he never bought a beer :-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps: Whether far away or near. Akld guy (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Sometimes pictures can reveal what the naked eye can't discern. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Inclusive terminology in non-English languages
Is the movement towards inclusive terminology also found in languages other than English? If so, how does inclusive terminology differ between languages (for example, some languages have grammatical gender)? What are the inclusive (and offensive) terms for disabilities in the local languages of Singapore? Is inclusive terminology harder to understand for second-language speakers? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.200.38 (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Most Western European and American countries have similar movements for inclusive language - you might have to specify a bit more what you mean by inclusive (gender-neutral? inclusive for people with disabilities?). As for how languages with grammatical gender do it, see Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender: in Spanish and Portuguese, you sometimes see the -o/-a in words like Latino/Latina replaced by -@ or -x (I'd say this is fairly rare - I see it more from bilingual or native English speakers who don't grok grammatical gender), while in German the feminine suffix -in (Freund = male, Freundin = female) is sometimes seen gender-neutrally as Freund*in (rare, left-wing), FreundIn (somewhat rare), Freund(in) (somewhat common), or Freund/in (somewhat common), and instead of man (a third-person pronoun equivalent to "one"), you sometimes see frau or mensch (I've never encountered this in the wild). Smurrayinchester 07:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a p.s., for German readers, there's an article on the FreundIn I on the German wikipedia. HenryFlower 13:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * One thing to beware of is the euphemism treadmill, which means that any "politically correct" term for bad thing will eventually be seen as offensive.  For example, "mentally retarded" is not inherently offensive, as it just means "cognitively delayed".  However, it's not a good thing, so it came to be viewed as an offensive term.  This will apply in any language.  So, the terms which are acceptable now may well be considered offensive in the future. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Swedish has begun using the pronoun hen to mean 'he or she', as opposed to han (he) or hon (she). Usage is by no means universal, but it has been recognised by Svenska Akademiens ordlista, the closest thing Swedish has to an 'official' vocabulary list. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Malay is already gender neutral in a number of areas although there are some gender words that are gendered. See Gender neutrality in genderless languages. There are moves towards gender neutral usage in English in Singapore  .  found in 2005 "he or she" was more popular than singular they in Singapore and the Philippines whereas singular they was more popular in NZ, US, UK, Canada & Australia although neither Philippines or NZ has many participants. Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One final comment. In Malaysia, ms:orang kurang upaya which translates to something like person with reduced abilities is the common Malay "sensitive" term for people with disabilities used nowadays AFAIK. The older term is orang cacat, which is generally translated to handicapped, note it can include both mental and physical handicaps. Cacat or orang cacat is sometimes used as a slur, somewhat similar to "retarded" in English (see e.g. although it can also be used as a slur in reference to physical abilities), probably one reason why OKU is replacing it. (Handicap may have this issue too, but IMO the slur-ness of cacat is significantly greater.) As is often the case, this doesn't mean orang cacat is always a slur, e.g. there's still at least one organisation  . Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Which variant of English is more dominant?
Do non-native English speakers have a preference in learning English? My observations tell me that non-native English speakers are learning American English as a foreign language and adopting elements of American culture (burger and fries and fancy TVs). 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's going to depend on the location. Former British colonies, like India, will tend to speak British English as a second language.  Former US colonies, like Cuba, will tend to speak American English as a second language.   If none-of-the-above, then American culture tends to dominate over British, so they would tend to speak American English, too, with a possible exception for nations near the UK, like Spain, or near a major former British colony.   StuRat (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Specifically, Indians speak Indian English, which has some unusual quirks – such as the phrase "do the needful" and the word "prepone" – which are rarely, if ever, seen in other variants of English. clpo13(talk) 18:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * English as a second or foreign language may have some insight. There's a section on the different varieties of English, but it doesn't specify if one variety is more common than others. clpo13(talk) 18:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The form of English is going to depend on the locale (and the resources available there) rather than the preferences of the learner. It's an oversimplification to think that former British colonies default to British English (after all, the US is a former colony too). The English taught in Canada is Canadian English, neither British nor American. Meters (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 13 former colonies, to be precise. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, as in a song from ca. 1960: "Fifty nifty United States, from thirteen original colonies..." And hence the 13 stripes in the flag, and a number of other symbolic references. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I mentioned that not to be some kind of nark, but to make the distinction between the USA and my own beloved country. USA went from 13 colonies straight to an independent sovereign nation (in which the former colonies became states), whereas Australia went from 6 colonies to 1 colony (also in which the former colonies became states), and only later, at some indefinable time, to an independent sovereign nation.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're a narkotics officer? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Declaration of Independence, 1776, declares "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States" – independent of each other as well as of the crown. Only after 1787, so far as I know, did the word state become a synonym of province. —Tamfang (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Right. So, does that mean they went from 13 British colonies to 13 independent nations to 1 independent nation?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, sort of. The Articles of Confederation were adopted by all thirteen shortly after the Declaration was declared, so one could argue that the thirteen being independent nations lasted less than two weeks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That was a rather loose association, something like the EU. I wouldn't call it a single nation until the Constitution went into effect.  Although they still pretended to be independent nations up until the Civil War, saying "these united states" instead of "the United States". StuRat (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of that usage? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume the above was intended to reply to Stu, so I've re-indented it accordingly. The article These United States turns out to be about a band, but if you look at United States, you'll see that it says about what Stu said, and cites this page which describes "these United States" as "a common antebellum designation for the country". --69.159.61.230 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Capitalized or not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Bugs has an elastic notion of time. The Articles were submitted for ratification on November 15, 1777, and came into force on March 1, 1781. —Tamfang (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My rather limited experience with Europeans (specifically the Netherlands and Norway where English is widely spoken), tend to use British English spelling and grammar, peppered with plenty of Americanisms picked-up from films and television. Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * With Europeans?! Wow!! Even those people who think the UK shouldn't be in the EU usually accept at least that the UK is a European country.  Basemetal  09:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It depends on the context: in the UK it's quite common to contrast the UK with the (rest of) the (European) Continent in colloquial speech, even if technically speaking it's not accurate. (Yes, I know your smily indicates you're aware of this and were not being entirely serious, but I'm clarifying for the benefit of any non-Europeans who might not be aware of the nuances.) {The poster formerly nown as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, apologies for the confusion User:Basemetal, mea culpa, but in mitigation see: Flights from Manchester to Europe and - Travel to Europe for £15 one-way''. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, back to those Europeans... Français-Américains: ces différences qui nous rapprochent by Gilles Asselin and Ruth Mastron (p. 303) says: "N' oubliez pas que les Français ont généralement appris l ' anglais britannique à l'école..." (my translation: "Don't forget that the French generally have learned British English at school..."). Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * note that the EU officially use British spelling, so Europeans may use or tend to use it not only because of their personal preference.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In countries like Malaysia and Singapore, the English taught & tested is generally similar to British English or and may even be simply called British English. However similar to India, there are some distinctions, some not even that well recognised among Singaporeans or Malaysians. For example, in both, flour tends to be pronouced fairly different from flower with the former being distinctly monosyballic something like flah (our Singlish article says /flɑ/). If you look at discussions, it's sometimes claimed the pronounciation is due to the British roots however in modern British English, the two are close to (or are) homophones AFAIK. Since the English I learnt at home is something close to New Zealand English, I always found the Malaysian pronounciation of flour weird. I've read comments suggestion some teachers and examiners consider pronouncing flour similar to flower as incorrect even though I expect this won't generally be the case in the UK and they may claim they are following British English (rather than Singaporean English or Malaysian English where you could make the case). Edit: Found an example I think from Singapore of flour [//youtube.com/watch?v=Ybv2jphkX6I?t=43s]. Given the dominance of American culture, it isn't uncommon for American English elements to creep in although grammar and spelling ones would often be rejected in education and media. Also in everyday use, there's quite a lot of influence from other languages including borrowed words and grammatical structure although a lot of these aren't considered "proper English". BTW, although there is a fair degree of similarity between Singaporean English and Malaysian English, I'm not trying to suggest they are the same. Educational standards etc are also quite different.  In China, from what I've read before, also mentioned to some extent in these sources    it's complicated. Traditional British English was preferred and what was commonly thought probably due to the influence of the British Council, Hong Kong, historic relationships and historic dominance, etc. However with the dominance of American culture now, there's incresingly a move towards American English. Especially in preferred accents, although  most Chinese can't differentiate the two and are probably learning from people who speak with a Chinese accent. Still both are used and there's no clear standard even in government run schools.  Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned some East Asian countries adopting British English, but you forgot to indicate a counter example - from that region: Our article Philippine English states: "Philippine English traditionally followed American English spelling and grammar (except when it comes to punctuation as well as date notations)". HOTmag (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, I wonder if there are any Americanisms that were adopted in British English over the last few years (maybe "color" instead of "colour"?). I'm not asking about the opposite case, because I guess it's less reasonable. HOTmag (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Back to the original question, do "non-native English speakers have a preference in learning English?" Yes, many of them might, but what actually happens is influenced by their teachers and the state school system, or their parents in paying for private language school. The student may say they want to speak the Queen's English, but in practice they will always sound French or Thai or Russian, because of the phenomenon known as mother tongue interference. You may be interested to hear linguist David Crystal speak about International English or as he says "World Englishes" here.


 * Broadly, education in Europe, or at any rate the European Union, has tended towards British English; two reasons for this are the Freedom of movement for workers in the European Union (so British and Irish teachers have been able to get visas much more easily than Americans, though see here for one view of the impact of Brexit on ELT) and the similar free movement of goods, which gave preferential access to British-based publishers for all the ELT course materials, books and audio.
 * For a subsequent question, see Comparison of American and British English. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are just travelling, then it doesn't really matter. However if you intend on living or working (in the long term) in the British commonwealth countries (Africa, Indian Subcontinent, South-East Asia, Australasia) or Europe, then use British English to communicate with the locals (However if you are in Europe and know the local European language, then use that language instead of English).
 * If you are going to North, Central or South America, China & East Asia, Micronesia, Philippines, then use American English to communicate with the locals.
 * Even if Americanisms are used by British people, it is never used in the school curriculum. A student at high school would not be allowed by a British teacher to write in American English, eg:
 * color colour; favor favour
 * center centre; meter metre
 * Driver's license Licence
 * tire tyre
 * program programme
 * yogurt yoghurt
 * realize, utilize realise, utilise
 * Hemoglobin Haemoglobin
 * Jello (dessert) Jelly
 * Ass (buttocks) Arse

Other differences in terminology include:
 * trash can rubbish bin
 * eraser rubber
 * stop whining (IPA: waɪnɪŋ) stop whinging (IPA: wɪndʒɪŋ)

Differences in pronounciation:
 * Pass (US: pæs, UK: pɑːs), Castle (US: kæsəl, UK: kɑːsl), Faster (US: fæstər, UK:ˈfɑːstə), Can't (US: kænt, UK: kɑːnt), Ask (US: æsk, UK: ɑːsk), Dance (US: dæns, UK: dɑːns), Bathroom (US: bæˌθrum, UK: bɑːθrum), After (US: ˈæftər. UK: ˈɑːftə), Address (US: ˈæˌdrɛs, UK: əˈdrɛs), Coupon (US: ˈkjuːpɒn; UK:kuːpɒn), Envelope (US: ˈɛnvəˌloʊp, UK: ˈɒnvələʊp), Schedule: (US: ˈskɛʤʊl, UK: ˈʃɛdjuːl)

This is how we usually can distinguish if a visitor is an American or influenced by US TV.

That said, if you want to be a programmer, it is NOT possible to code using exclusively UK English. Try inserting instead of and see what you get......

--BrianJ34 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of BrianJ34's stuff above is plain wrong. Realise, utilise, yoghurt are all redirected by Oxford Dictionaries to what he claims is the American spelling but is a correct (and, by OD, preferred) British spelling. Suggesting that British people do not say "whine" is fabrication, and his contribution on pronunciation takes no account of major dialects where we do say /pæs/, /kæsəl/ and /fæstə/. Bazza (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added more words to the list, do some British dialects also use those "US" pronunciations′? --BrianJ34 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea that in Britain a teacher would severely reprimand a pupil because they used ass... and did not use proper arse instead... Is that how it goes in Britain? So actually Monty Python was no exaggeration? I think I'm gonna move to Britain. Teacher: What did you write here Brian? Brian: I wrote: "She had her finger up her ass" Teacher: No, Brian. This is totally unacceptable. This is plain wrong. One must write: "She had her finger up her arse". Basemetal  23:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , Actually the teacher would most likely suggest a more 'appropriate' word such as "backside" or "buttocks". The word "arse" would not be accepted in written essays. "Ass" would only be accepted in assignments/essays/poetry if it referred to "Asinus" (the donkey subgenus) --BrianJ34 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Too bad, I mean, thank God. That's what it looked like to me when I read A student at high school would not be allowed by a British teacher to write in American English, eg: [...] Ass (buttocks) Arse. Thank you for clarifying.  Basemetal  05:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've lived in the UK for some time, you should have come across northern regions' dialects use of (as in ) as opposed to  in some words, including those you listed above:, ,  and , and . As for , it seems to be well on the way to displacing the more traditional British  or . The assertion that Americans say  is a surprise, and is similar to early- and mid-20thC British English pronunciation (as in , now virtually extinct), and current  and ; can anyone confirm this? Bazza (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here in northern England we don't use the /æ/ vowel at all. It's /bɑːθ/ in the south but /baθ/ in the north (and I don't think I'm extinct yet) .    D b f i r s   18:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems it is not a very common vowel, worldwide. French uses a nasalized version of it in quinze, at least in some accents, though for some reason it's not how we transcribe in Wikipedia.  Persian has it (including before /r/, which is hard for me to say for some reason).  But I can't immediately think of any others. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * /a/ isn't an allowed symbol in Wikipedia's IPA for English (using  ). This suggests you do use . Bazza (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the word "tweet" a generic trademark?
Is the word "tweet" a generic trademark and/or a word that the Twitter creators made up and that it is now a dictionary word? WJetChao (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been the sound that birds make since at least 1550.   D b f i r s   20:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You can hear the word in "Let's All Sing Like The Birdies Sing" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVme82oYH-g.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure "tweet" in the sense of "short message" has become generic, or is in any particular danger of doing so - it seems to always refer to a message sent on Twitter. People will talk about googling, when they're actually searching with Bing.  People will get out the hoover, when the vacuum cleaner in the cupboard is actually a Dyson.  But I'm not aware of anyone "tweeting" on Facebook/Snapchat/similar services - the term refers only to Twitter itself. MChesterMC (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No one calls a Dyson vacuum a Hoover. Kirby maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.56.232 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In Britain, hoover is used as a generic word for a "vacuum (cleaner)" or to hoover is used to mean "to vacuum. Not hardly no one. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no one in Britain would call a Hoover, Electrolux, Henry, or Dyson, a "Kirby". Kirby make hair grips. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Kirby Company vacuum cleaners really get any respect in the US? In NZ they're only really known for their ridiculous prices and extremely dodgy door to door sale tactics.    Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Normality versus normalcy
Is there any semantic difference between these words? FWIW I've never used "normalcy", I'm a 48-year-old native speaker of South African English. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See the lead of Return to normalcy. Warren Harding was criticized for using the term, and there's probably no reason to use it except in allusion to his statement. Deor (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Henry Watson Fowler wrote of "normalcy": "a hybrid derivative of the 'spurious hybrid' class..[which] seems to have nothing to recommend it", and I would never use it in British English, but it has been used in American English since at least 1857 and The Canberra Times used it in 2000. Wiktionary says: "Although sometimes used, normalcy is less common than normality in American English. It is very rarely used in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is frequent in India, however."    D b f i r s   22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Whatever the situation was at that time, the term has entered general usage, and has different connotations from "normality". If you desire those connotations (and are willing to accept that some readers may consider the word substandard), well, that would be a reason to use it, it seems to me. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the subtleties of meaning to an ignorant Britisher?   D b f i r s   22:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Normality" is just "the state of being normal". It's a very literal word. There's a lot more baggage attached to "normalcy".  It's more of a societal condition, where one knows what to expect and how to behave, where things chug along the way they're supposed to and there's nothing to be scared of. --Trovatore (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks. Neither Wiktionary nor the OED, nor even Merriam-Webster online conveys that subtlety, but Dictionary.com gives a hint of it.   D b f i r s   23:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The connotations specified by Trovatore are what I meant by "in allusion to his statement", since they seem to derive (at whatever degree of removal) from Harding's usage. Deor (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, they might at that, but I wouldn't call that an "allusion". It might be how the connotation arose, but that doesn't mean you're thinking of Harding when you use it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In the experience of a 70 year speaker of American English, I would apply "normality" to nouns, specific things, and "normalcy" to the world, the context, the status quo, the larger state of being. -- Cgmusselman (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Zwiebelknopffibel in English?
I’m looking for an English term describing what is called Zwiebelknopffibel in German (due to the onion-shaped knobs). I’ve found crossbow fibula, but that appears to be an umbrella term since the Commons category also contains objects that aren’t Zwiebelknopffibeln. Any suggestions? Rgds ✦  hugarheimur 23:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears to be known as either a Roman crossbow brooch, or a Roman crossbow fibula.Wymspen (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I said, that appears to be a generic term also including specimens that aren’t Zwiebelknopffibeln. Since there seems to be no proper English term, I’ll probably just use the German. Thanks anyway ✦  hugarheimur 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Torana, I think you are placing too much faith on the categorization of that picture. If you read the description it is described as a "fibula", not a "crossbow fibula", which is as might be expected given that it doesn't have the crossbow shape. And if you look at the parent category "Fibulae", the picture you refer to belongs more properly there. I agree with Wymspen that the English term seems to be "crossbow fibula", not Zwiebelknopffibel. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)