Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 March 16

= March 16 =

Is there a term for this?
A single most emblematic physical construction in a city, which the city is most associable with, and which could most recognizably be used to represent that city. For example, in the movie La La Land, the main character's travel to Paris is represented by an animation where a plane approaches an Eiffel Tower standing amidst an otherwise empty map of Europe, and then a view of the actual Eiffel Tower is used to indicate that the next scene is set in Paris. Other examples of that would be New York's Statue of Liberty, London's Big Ben and Sydney's Opera House. --Theurgist (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Cultural icon fits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Landmark. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Or, more specifically "iconic landmark" (which is a red link). --Xuxl (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Or, even more specifically, "iconic city landmark" or perhaps "symbolic city landmark". StuRat (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Could it be metonym? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not quite. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think metonym is what I had in mind. I don't think it is entirely off-base. As in other cases of metonyms, one representative part implies the whole. Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess it is sort of the visual equivalent, but you would never use those things as actual metonyms (in the strict sense) for those cities. I would just call them symbols or maybe emblems. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is true, it is not correct in the strict sense. They are shorthand representation for the given cities. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(OP's post) The representation and the (visual equivalent of) metonymy are not what I'm looking for; they're results of the construction being what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a term that would fit here: "This construction is the city's XXX, and as such is often used as a representation or (visual) metonym for the city", or in the title of a hypothetical list of cities' XXXs, where XXX bears the sense of "iconic landmark" (the term suggested by Xuxl, which I find the best so far). --Theurgist (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Calling card? Also see Famous Landmarks, World Monuments and Landmarks, and Monuments and Landmarks, where we find the interesting terminology "virtually synonymous" and "national and cultural symbols". Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * How about "location-indicating sights"? Bus stop (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The usage in movies is an establishing shot. —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"couple" as singular noun or plural?
Which is correct?


 * A couple is in the park. They are looking at the bird.
 * A couple is in the park. It is looking at the bird.
 * A couple is in the park. Both individuals are looking at the bird. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In British English, none of the above. Rather, "A couple are in the park. They are looking at the bird." see here In American, however.... HenryFlower 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What about American? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (US) The first is correct, as is the 3rd, but ugly. A couple may be viewed either collectively, in which case it is singular, or as two individuals, in which case it is plural.  In the first sentence of the first example, it is viewed collectively, while in the 2nd sentence they are viewed as individuals.  Evidence for the fact that a couple may be referred to singularly is that it has a plural form, "couples".


 * Also note that this logic is common, as in "A flock of geese is flying overhead ... now they are swimming in the pond". Why the switch ?  Well, geese fly in formation, as a single unit, while they swim individually. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Evidence for the fact that a couple may be referred to singularly is that it has a plural form, 'couples' ". I suspect it's not an evidence at all. Check: "a lot of people are (in the park)", even though it has a plural form: "lots of people are (in the park)". HOTmag (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Lot" also has singular and plural forms, so what's your point ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, please tell me what your point is. You said that "a couple may be referred to singularly ", so I understand you wanted to claim that one might say "A couple is in the park ". Wasn't this your point? If this was, then your "evidence" for referring to "a couple" singularly, i.e. for saying "A couple is in the park ", was that "a couple" had a plural form, "couples". So, I asked you about the word "a lot": Please notice that even though it has a plural form: "lots", this is not an evidence for referring to "a lot" singularly, i.e. for saying: "A lot of people is in the park ", so how can the plural form "couples" be an evidence for referring to "a couple" singularly, i.e. for saying "A couple is in the park "? Is my point clear now? Unless I missed something... HOTmag (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The "of people" brings it back to referring to the people individually, just as "a couple of people are...", but "a couple is", we have "a lot of people are" or "a lot is", as in "A lot is available for sale", or "Lots are available for sale". StuRat (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've always agreed that "a couple/lot" - not followed by "of" - should be referred to singularly, as in "A couple is in the park ", and in "A lot is available for sale ". However, my point was about your "evidence" from the plural form. In my view, if the plural form in "Couples are in the park " had been an evidence - for referring to "a couple" [not followed by "of"] singularly - i.e. for saying "A couple is in the park ", then also the plural form in "Couples of people are in the park " and in "Lots of people are in the park " would have been an evidence - for referring to "a couple of people" and to "a lot of people" singularly - i.e. for saying "A couple of people is in the park " and for saying "A lot of people is in the park ", as opposed to what you've claimed that "The 'of people' brings it back to referring to the people individually ". Is my point clear now? HOTmag (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it depends on whether you're talking about the couple as one group or as two individuals. See this from Merriam-Webster (particularly the paragraph starting with "Additionally") or this from the American Heritage Dictionary (the Usage Note). --76.71.6.254 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) "A couple are in the park. They are looking at the bird." works best in American too. "Couple" is a collective noun, and hence can be used in the singular—if the people are being viewed as a single unit—or in the plural—if they are being viewed as individuals. In the OP's example, they are being viewed as individuals, because each of them is looking at the bird. An example of its being used in the singular would be "Each couple was assigned one table". Loraof (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the logic but disagree with the conclusion. In the first sentence, they are being viewed collectively.  The possibility of expanding to "The couples are in the park" illustrates the plural case.  Compare with "The crowd/mob/group is in the park" or "The crowds/mobs/groups are in the park". StuRat (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Even today the word "couple" implies one of each sex.  It is permissible, in the case of a group, to use the neuter pronoun, but a couple are not a group.   That is why the second sentence of the second example is incorrect. 86.169.56.176 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "A couple are in the park" is liable to evoke the question, "A couple of what? Dogs? Cats? Other birds?" "A couple is in the park" makes the meaning clearer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ( ... and it's exactly the same in British English, despite the permissibility of plurals for groups on this side of the Pond. )   D b f i r s   22:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bugs, that doesn't obviate the failure of concordance in "The couple is.... They are ..." That's very awkward wording no matter how you look at it. One would be well advised not to treat couple as singular in a sentence and then use a plural pronoun and plural verb to refer to it in the immediately following sentence. Deor (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you would say "they is looking at the bird". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're treating couple as singular (as "The couple is ..." indicates), you wouldn't use the plural pronoun they to refer to it, would you? That's not the problem here. I tend to agree with Loraof that "The couple are.... They are ..." is the best choice given the possibilities on the table here, though the sentences could easily be recast to avoid the problem. Deor (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, on reflection, plural throughout does sound better with indefinite article. If we have already referred to the couple, then it would be OK to say "That couple is in the park.  They are looking at the bird.", but, even then, the plural sounds better in British English where we are happy to treat a singular group as plural as soon as we think of the individuals in it.   D b f i r s   22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple of apples; a pair of apples. A married couple; two wed persons. The number depends on the meaning. See Platonism, (absolute falsity of).  μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To my British ears, "a couple is in the park" sounds weird. I can't think of a context in which it wouldn't sound weird. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * One would say there is a couple in the park (meaning lovers) or there are a couple in the park (meaning two water fountains). Without a wider context, "a couple is in the park" is not an unambiguous stand-alone idiomatic statement. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Which languages are we?
Schuchardt in his book "Slawo-deutsches und Slawo-italienisches" apparently quotes a proverb Tko želi dobro govoriti mora natucati. I've found one source describing it as "Slowene"; Google Translate suggests Croatian. Is is possible to specify which language it is, or does the question not make sense in the context of 19th century south Slavic languages/dialects? HenryFlower 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 100% Serbo-Croat.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. HenryFlower 21:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding a bonus question: is "Franske Taleøvelser. Høiere Trin" Norwegian or Danish? Thanks. HenryFlower 16:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

British/American English
I recently edited a page and then changed spelling of a word from british english  to usa english. Then I got into and edit war over the spelling which english spelling is preffered here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopernicusAD (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Copernicus The Vigilante — User:CopernicusAD or my talk User talk: CopernicusAD :D 17:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If the page is about something primarily devoted to a particular English-speaking country, it should use that country's spelling. Otherwise, whichever spelling system was used originally in the article is the one that continues to be used. See WP:ENGVAR. Loraof (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer "preferred", either way. ♬	Isn't it ironic... ♫ 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If we want it to be perfect, we'd best consult the prefect. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There is sometimes a Template:Use British English or Template:Use American English (or any other variant you can think of) at the top of the article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You should try to avoid messing with British vs. American spellings. The guidelines are not really clear to a lot of people and they invite creative interpretations. I used to edit Wikipedia articles frequently and I also guarded pages against all sorts of vandalism, including IPs trying to change pages from British English to American and vice versa. One time in 2012 after I stopped an IP from switching a page from American to British spelling, an admin (User:Amatulic) insisted my reading of the guidelines (i.e., "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another.") was incorrect and said he would block me if I stopped British IPs from changing American spellings. So I quit editing en.wikipedia for the most part. —Stephen (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Amatulic, since renamed, is not an admin, and that threat sounds like a bluff, since your reading of the rule is generally correct. But you're right that it's a waste of time to get into these Brit vs Yank spelling differences. Better to let others worry about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahem. For the record, my message to Stephen G. Brown is here. I think it speaks for itself. There was no "threat". The guideline is clear, particularly the section MOS:RETAIN, which Mr. Brown evidently hadn't seen at that time. I recommend that anybody thinking about changing the English variety in an article to do your due diligence and investigate the English variant in which the article was originally developed. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't really on-topic, but as long as it's come up &mdash; having taken a quick look, I think you may be taking a somewhat overly mechanical interpretation of RETAIN. What the guideline says is, if there is an established variety, it shouldn't be changed without consensus.  If there is not one, and there are no strong national ties, then you look for "first major contributor".  I haven't tried to analyze the content of the article in 2012, but I note that an edit summary by a different editor claims that "the article consistently uses American English".  If that was true (and was not a recent change) then the first major contributor is not what controls. --Trovatore (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had the same problem before with an editor who insisted on changing a quote like "about 1,000 miles" as written verbatim by a 19th century British author giving a round estimate to "1,609 kilometres" since "only Americans have any idea what miles are." Aparently his kids can't read Shakespeare or Tolkien either. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the author of that edit knows what to do with "miles per hour", which is still in common British usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Funny thing is the guy claimed to be an Australian eyeroplain pilot, so he presumably knew what knots were. He hasn't editted for fourscore moons. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe he knew. Or knot. Do you recall what the article was? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Which article was it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Never forget, The Battle Of Aluminium, The Yoghurt Wars ... and many more. https://xkcd.com/1167/ 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Magnificient, indeed. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandy bulls
Could someone please help me re-cast this sentence, to make it clearer;

The strand, which is part of the South Bull, (a mirror to the North Bull sandbank, which grew into North Bull Island) is a major component of the south side of Dublin Bay and is part of the Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve.

86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Just split into two sentences:

South Bull is a major component of the south side of Dublin Bay and is part of the Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve. South Bull is a mirror to the North Bull sandbank, which grew into North Bull Island.


 * StuRat (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Prefect, thnaks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would pull out the part about the mirror sandbank, since the subject of the sentence is Sandymount Strand and not South Bull: The strand, which is part of the South Bull sandbank, is a major component of the south side of Dublin Bay and is part of the Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve. Bull Island and Dollymount Strand can be mentioned in a second sentence if necessary. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's almost exactly what I just did, while you were typing. . Feel free to tweak, if you wish. Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with Sandy Balls. Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is she related to Harry Baals? μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with splitting up the sentence to simplify the structure, but the only thing that was actually wrong in the original version is that the second comma was misplaced. It should have been after the closing parenthesis. Since the parenthetical passage pertains to South Bull, it groups with "which is part of the South Bull". --76.71.6.254 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah; it was just really awkward. Not great, as the 2nd sentence in an article :-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)