Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2022 April 20

= April 20 =

Tyres
Does the Oxford English Dictionary use "tire" or "tyre" for the rubber thing you put around a wheel? I just did, but after reading Tire, I'm not so sure. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My Concise Oxford Dictionary, Sixth edition 1976, offers both spellings; but indicates that “tire” is chiefly a US spelling. Dolphin ( t ) 02:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See also American and British English spelling differences. Shantavira|feed me 08:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * According to EO, first it was "tyre", then it was switched to "tire", and then the Brits switched it back to "tyre". --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since "rubber-tyred wheels" appears elsewhere in the article, I've restored the edit made by the OP for the sake of consistency. (I didn't bother to check whether British spellings are used everywhere in the article.) Deor (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you dream flat tires? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I asked specifically about the Oxford English Dictionary because Talk:Rail transport says that it uses Oxford spelling, and since the "Tire" article notes that it's etymologically wrong, a much newer spelling, and an 1840s spelling that wasn't used by the best English authorities a century ago, I wondered if this were one of those places where Oxford disagrees with common UK spelling. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The online OED says that "tyre" is A variant spelling of tire n.2, both being used indifferently in 15th and 16th centuries. In 17th cent. tire became the settled spelling, and has so continued in U.S.; but in Great Britain tyre has been revived for the pneumatic tires of bicycles, carriages, and motor cars, and is also sometimes used for iron or steel tires. CodeTalker (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Servant of the People song translation question
Servant of the People is currently bring broadcast on Vision TV, with English subtitles by Mark P. Raczkiewicz, and I've been watching it. For the first few episodes the song in the opening title sequence was not subtitled, but then they were added. And the first three lines of the song are subtitled as:


 * I love my country and
 * I even love my wife,
 * And I love my dog too.

Which seems a bit surprising, because at least in the episodes I've seen, he doesn't have a dog. Anyone able to tell whether the Ukrainian wording of the third line is different? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From various lyrics sites, the language is Russian (not Ukrainian), and the first verse is just “I love my country, love my wife, love my dog.” —Amble (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone could find the actual show in Youtube or someplace and check the translation. And also confirm the language.  I could never tell spoken Russian from Ukrainian, but I know a difference in how they are written (Ukrainian has a letter that looks like our I; Russian doesn't) and this tells me that the screen credits are in Ukrainian. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave it a listen. It's in Russian and the lyrics are just as you'll find on lyrics sites, "Я люблю свою страну, люблю свою жену, люблю свою собаку", which is simply "I love my country, love my wife, love my dog". I haven't seen the show but my understanding is that the spoken dialog is basically in Russian with occasional Ukrainian. The version I saw did have the printed credits in Ukrainian, just as you said. This may be different for distribution in different countries. --Amble (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Amble. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there any significance to свою vs мою (if the latter is a word)? —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a word and it could also be used. The word свою is a form of wikt:свой, meaning “one’s own”, and мою is a form of wikt:мой, meaning “my” or “mine”. Russian has a preference for свой, and in some cases it’s required. There’s not quite an equivalent word in English. Russian nouns also don’t require determiners like English nouns do, so you could also just say “я люблю жену”, “I love wife.” —Amble (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Magpie Murders vs. The Magpie Murders
In that miniseries title, what difference that 'the' could make? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Magpie Murders is the title of the original novel; and, from the reference in that article, the TV series too. The Magpie Murders isn't. Bazza (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant what difference does "the" make in the meaning of the title. In a scene at its first part, writer of the book says emphatically and angrily that its title is "Magpie ..." not "The Magpie ...". Omidinist (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the author wanted it that way. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect the point is that it doesn't make much difference at all: it is important to the author, but others tend to ignore it and may not understand the distinction at all. See and  for some similar examples. --Amble (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article does not seem to indicate what magpies have to do with anything. Do you know? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * People often refer to Handel's oratorio Messiah as The Messiah. It doesn't make any difference practically, it still sorts under M for Messiah. But encylopaedicists recoil in horror at the wrongness of it, and it doesn't do to get on their bad sides. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Magpie Murders could be an avian crime story (They thought they were safe in their cozy little nest; little did they know that a merciless fiend was loose.), so the "The" makes it a bit clearer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, "Magpie Murders" is rather indefinite and mysterious; it could refer to a general concept, or events with some shared characteristic that are otherwise unconnected, and could be a description by an omniscent narrator's voice, unknown to the story's characters: "The Magpie Murders" carries the suggestion of a particular series of connected acts that is, or will be, known to people in the story by that specific name. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.101.71 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Conversely (and with apologies for paraphrasing): The Magpie Murders could be an avian crime story (Frustrated by the other birds' warning cries, it went on a killing rampage, eliminating them one by one.) So the "The" makes it a bit clearer. Bazza (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can have a murder of crows, why not a murder of magpies? In choosing the title, real-world author Anthony Horowitz may have followed the pattern of Midsomer Murders, which is also missing the more conventional definite article for such titles (The XYZ Murders) for crime-mystery works of fiction. Moonflower Murders continues the pattern. Magpie Murders is not only the title of a novel you may buy from a bookstore, but also that of the fictional (unfinished) crime-mystery novel by fictional author (and murder victim) Alan Conway. In the embedded novel, as a stranger is mysteriously leaving early during the funeral of Mary Blakiston, Jeffrey Weaver looks up and sees as many as seven magpies in an elm tree. He muses, Well, wasn’t that the strangest thing? A whole crowd of magpies in one tree, as if they had gathered here for the funeral. (Pages 37–38 in the paperback edition.) Potential spoiler, select to read:  --Lambiam 08:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked up magpies in Alon Shulman's book "A Mess of Iguanas, a Whoop of Gorillas", and it seems the "correct" classifier for a group of magpies is a "tittering" (which I assume might be related to twittering). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * About magpies, don't they have rather negative connotations, in general? Mostly as thieves of sparkly things, but also as rather shady characters in general. (In Swedish "skata" could refer to a gosipy bitch, and in Spanish "maricon" - a "big magpie" - is an effeminate gay, quite disrespected in the traditional macho culture.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on how many there are. Bazza (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But the type of negative connotation differs (in English, at least) upon which magpie is meant. Canadian magpies are violent brawling bastards, English magpies are sneaky thieving bastards, and Australian magpies are loud bastards. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not mattering to one's self is not a synonym to doesn't matter to anyone. An example I can think of is the band Eagles, which in running prose is often called "the Eagles" (not lack of capital letter on "the"), to match English grammatical expectations.  However, "the" is adamantly not a part of the band's name; founding members have, on occasion, been adamant about that, and their media is consistent: every album and single is credited to "Eagles".  On the flip side, it is The Who, (note capital T on the word "The"), in that case "The" is part of the name, and albums consistently use "The Who" (when the band is so named on the album cover), i.e. The Who Sell Out or The Who by Numbers.  Other bands are less consistent; The Rolling Stones sometimes include "The" as part of their name (see Sticky Fingers) and sometimes not (see the "clean" version of Beggars Banquet, though the bathroom version uses "The").  Famously, Pink Floyd went through an interesting evolution beginning as The Pink Floyd Sound (with Pink Floyd being an attributive noun), and then The Pink Floyd (where "The" was part of the name, see "Arnold Layne") and finally just Pink Floyd.  Why does this matter, like anything else with language, it is not a law of physics, which is defined by the behavior of the universe, or something like that.  The rules of language are built up through some rather random and arbitrary and even inconsistent processes, and the best we can do is just explain what those are; we don't need to agree with them and they don't need to have a cause or purpose or be consistent.  They just are.  -- Jayron 32 12:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this NYT article, the "magpie" in the title is an homage to Agatha Christie's use of nursery rhymes in her novels, and the book-within-a-book by the fictional author Alan Conway has chapter titles starting with "1: Sorrow" (see One for Sorrow). A preview of the book is here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the connection of the nursery rhyme to an observed number of magpies. The seven magpies in an elm tree make the doubly fictional Jeffrey, we are told, put the nursery rhyme in mind, with its lines "Seven for a secret, / Never to be told". Indeed, part 7 has the title "Seven: A Secret Never to Be Told". (Each part has several untitled chapters, with numbering starting each time anew at 1.) --Lambiam 17:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the best known version of the rhyme in the UK (not reproduced in our article) is:
 * One for sorrow, / Two for joy, / Three for a girl, / Four for a boy, / Five for silver, / Six for gold, / Seven for a secret, never to be told. / Eight for a wish, / Nine for a kiss, / Ten is a bird you must not miss. Alansplodge (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The pseudonymous author of the Story of O ("Pauline Reage") was apparently insistent on leaving out the definite article from the original French title... AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in French, there's a good reason for that imho, whereas in English, there isn't. French has only one word for history and story (although it does have a different one for "children's story", kind of like we have "tale"). I am not a native speaker of French, but to me, Histoire d'O means "Story of O" or "The Story of O" (and it doesn't matter which one you pick in English, because here is hardly any difference between the two imho), whereas L'histoire d'O means "The history of O" or "The Story of O", and there's clearly a difference, which I assume I don't have to explain to native English speakers. That said, if Réage made a clear statement about preference, and if it doesn't make any difference in English whether you do or don't keep the article, one might as well go along with her preference as it does no harm to the English title. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried a few searches to come up with a source about Réage's title preference, and other than user-generated content have found nothing about it. (I searched French sources only.) Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It was in the Wikipedia article for years (you can see discussions on the article talk page). Didn't notice when it was deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)