Language desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 2[edit]

What's the go with hyphens and dashes?[edit]

Been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years now, and one area I've never come to grips with is one that some editors are clearly obsessed with - hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes. (I will probably be chastised and corrected for the way I've just used them!) I can hardly see the difference when I see a change made by one of the dash police. They are all cute little short lines.

I finally decided to look at the appropriate part of the Manual of Style, and found it quite incomprehensible. I studied English at school to a reasonable level and I write a lot. Never have I ever seen such an obsession over short lines than here in Wikipedia.

Two questions:

1. Why does it matter so much here?

2. Is there a simpler summary of the rules than the Manual of Style? HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been perplexed by this issue in the past. The problem in part is that there is no "en-dash" on my keyboard. When I learned to type, a few generations ago, they told us to use a double-hyphen to stand for a dash. The best explanation I can give for your second question, the MOS approach, is that hyphens are used for connecting related words, such as with "semi-automatic" (or as the minus sign in math usages), while dashes are used as the equivalent of "from-to", such as birth and death dates, or as connections between unrelated words, such as Minneapolis–Saint Paul. I'm sure there's much more to it. And since I firmly believe the answer to your first question is, "It isn't", I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. I just use a hyphen and let the n-dash obsessed editors find and fix it, on the assumption that they know what they're doing while you and I might not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't worry about those distinctions, either. My advice is to just use a regular dash. If some other editor with too much time on his hands then wants to change it to something imperceptibly different, let him. I call this the "dash and go" approach. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have autocorrect set in my (old) version of Microsoft Word to insert the appropriate length of line (when I remember to use the shortcuts I've created), but that doesn't work when editing Wiki articles. The en-dash and em-dash are available at the bottom of the editing page if you have either "Insert" or "Wiki markup" selected, but that helps only if you know which one you should be using. There are much worse faults in many (most?) Wikipedia articles, so I don't think it's a big deal either, even though I try to get it right in Word documents. Dbfirs 08:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can quite easily notice the difference between them, and find it quite apparent in many instances when the wrong one is used, or when one is used incorrectly. However, in a number of circumstances I forget all the complexities of the rules and have to recheck the MOS. Now, when writing in article space I am quite particular about using the right one, and will correct incorrect usage if I see it. On the other hand, when writing elsewhere, such as on talkpages or the reference desk, I just use a dash for speed. And as above, I'm not really obsessive about it in terms of hunting them down, as I know most people don't notice (much less care about) the difference. However I wouldn't say that this is the only place that is obsessive about it; I think that most professional publishers would be similarly obsessive. I guess the point is that in a perfect world all Wikipedia articles would also be perfect, including perfect—and perfectly consistent—use of the agreed upon rules of grammar and punctuation (FWIW those are correctly used em dashes). If you're interested there is a short tutorial at User:Tony1/How to use hyphens and dashes that is perhaps a bit simpler than the MOS. --jjron (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But not helped by the fact that the opening sentence of that article - "Hyphens and dashes are basic to stylish writing in English" - is totally and incontrovertibly bollocks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forget to mention... Given that someone above referred to using a dash as the minus sign, thought I would also point out that that is also incorrect. The minus sign is yet another type of short straight line! --jjron (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, and I was saying that you use the hyphen to indicate the minus sign. Or I do, anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, so you did. And for that matter, usually so do I. But if we want to wiki properly, we shouldn't. :) --jjron (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that it matters so much because the "gnomish" aspects of Wikipedia exert a strong attraction on a set of editors with obsessive personalities. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seek out correcting hyphen/dash usage, but I may fix an incorrect usage if I happen to stumble upon it the same way I would correct a capitalization error or something else minor I came across. And while the en dash and em dash are available to input into the wiki under "Special characters," I find it much faster to add them directly via alt codes: Alt + 0150 on the numpad for an en dash (–) and Alt + 0151 on the numpad for an em dash (—). --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, alt codes. Back in the 1990s-era day, I learned a few of them and still use them to this day: Alt+130 for é, Alt+138 for è, Alt+144 for É, Alt+135 for ç. They're so much quicker than any other method of accessing those characters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or on a Macintosh, option - for – and option+shift - for —. Pfly (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who cares at all about writing correctly, confusing dashes with hyphens is a significant error. People who dismiss this as pedantry are mainly wrong. (Well, certainly wrong in an environment such as Wikipedia.) There are some borderline word-linking cases where the choice between hyphen and dash is not always clear-cut, but in the large majority of cases the two are very definitely not interchangeable. 86.176.210.154 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it matters a lot to you, but did you see my Question 1. at the start? Why does it matter so much? HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do any marks of punctuation "matter so much"? Would your question 1—"Why does it matter so much here?"—be any less understandable if it ended with a period or with no punctuation at all? The use of punctuation marks in accordance with a house style or widespread conventions may seem to some to reflect sheer arbitrariness or pedantry, but to others it reflects an admirable professionalism and an awareness of historic typographic practice that isn't lightly to be tossed aside. If you don't want to make any distinction between hyphens and en dashes and em dashes when you edit Wikipedia articles, you are of course free to do so; but why express incomprehension of editors who think the distinction worthy of preservation, and why use that as an excuse to make more work for others? If you truly can't understand the different situations in which the three marks should be used, perhaps you should try to word your sentences in such a way that none of them need be used. Deor (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Just to add my tuppence-worth: first; in some published material hyphens, en-dashes, em- or even double em-dashes, and minus signs may all be used for different purposes, so carelessness in their application may cause the reader confusion; secondly, even if only one or two of the different uses are being employed, inconsistency in usage will cause many readers – perhaps more sensitive to minutiae that you, HiLo48 – to stumble and become irritated. Editing is like theatre direction, generally one doesn't consciously notice it unless it's poor.

Professionally trained editors are always aiming for perfection in this as well as in other aspects of editing – one inconsistency or one annoyed reader is one too many – and perhaps we sometimes become a little obsessive about it, or apply it in areas like talk pages where it's not strictly necessary, and certainly we're more likely to notice lapses, but better that than sloppiness :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question raised by Deor doesn't work in the general application. Ending a sentence with a period can be important to understanding it. But that's not the case with the specific kind of hyphen or dash that's used between dates or between the names of two twin cities. There's no ambiguity to the general reader. I note 90's usage of standard hyphens where dashes theoretically should be used. But that's common practice, and there's no problem understanding the meaning. Meanwhile, Deor's deliberate use of dashes and hyphens in his statement didn't even catch my eye the first time. No matter which one is used, the meaning is unaffected. Which is why I don't bother with the fancy dashes. (1) The reading public doesn't care. (2) The typographers here DO care, and they will enjoy fixing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd say 90's usage of hyphens and dashes is spot-on, at least following the rules of the MOS (well except that "en dash" and "em dash" don't really need to be hyphenated). --jjron (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I go along with Bugs, think of the "dash and hyphen police" as "dash and hyphen gnomes", do your thing and don't worry about the details of the length of the line and they will come along (huffing and tutting) and correct them for you. This is called collaboration and is one of the rocks on which Wikipedia is built. Richard Avery (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me a "dash and hyphen gnome". I am quite careful about how I use them in my own writing, but unless it causes a major misunderstanding, or it happens to be in something I am otherwise editing, I leave them alone. About the only place I make a large number of changes is in tables, because a proper minus sign helps alignment, whereas a hyphen is too short and a dash is too long. (BTW, I am surprised no one pointed the OP to our article dash, which has relatively straightforward explanations about the similar punctuation marks. — Michael J 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the original question one, I think this is one of those things that occurs because the manual of style is itself based on real-world manuals of style, such as the Chicago one. I have no idea of the particulars, but I would imagine that the editors drawing up the Wikipedia manual of style mirrored the most widely-accepted style manuals out there, and that most of them are also quite picky about dashes. Also, I seem to remember there are a few differences when using dashes in British English and American English on Wikipedia too, and I think that is probably due to discrepancy between British and American style manuals. Does anyone know the details of how and when our current dash guidelines were drafted? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

的 and spanish de[edit]

Is the Mandarin 的 (de) related at all to the Spanish de in that they both have similar pronunciations (as well as identical romanizations) and similar usage in that they can be used to connect two nouns in an adjectival manner? 98.113.158.92 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a coincidence. (Also they are not grammatically similar; in Mandarin the structure is POSSESSOR de POSSESSEE [张三的书], whereas in Spanish it's POSSESSEE de POSSESSOR [el libro de Mengano], unless you're referring to something different.rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first principle of evaluating a proposed etymological relationship between two languages is to go back to the earliest known form on each side. So it's relevant that in Latin (the ancestor of Spanish), de most literally meant "down from" (or in an extended sense, "about" or "concerning"). It did not mean "of", and it did not form a quasi-adjectival connection between two nouns. Furthermore, the shorter the forms to be compared between two languages, and the more that they consist of sounds and sound patterns (phonotactics) commonly found in many languages of the world, the greater the probability of a purely accidental resemblance. Combined with the facts that Spanish and Chinese were in quite different parts of the word, with little opportunity to influence each other until less than 500 years ago, and it seems exceedingly unlikely that there is any kind of etymological relationship... AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And according to Wiktionary the possible original pronunciation of 的, in Old Chinese, was *[t-lˤewk], with an original meaning of "bright", and in early Middle Chinese, roughly contemporaneous with Latin, a pronunciation of [dek] or [tek]. There is no final velar in any of the reconstructed etymologies of Latin dē, which may have derived from the same root as dō ("give") or may be cognate with English to (meanings obviously unrelated to "bright"). Marco polo (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating correspondence has just occurred to me. A reconstructed Old Chinese pronunciation of 的, meaning "bright", was *[t-lˤewk], in which *[t-] is believed to have been some kind of prefix. Meanwhile, there is the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European root *lewk- [1], meaning "bright" and cognate with the English word light. Apparently others have noted similarities between Old Chinese and Indo-European roots. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue[edit]

Hello. An uninformed person recently tried to seem smart to me by "citing" the etymology of the word 'tongue' as French (accompanied by a very butchered and affected rendering of the "original French"). Little did he know I speak French and have a strong grasp of word origins and naturally I chewed him out for it (in a friendly way, of course :) But looking back it seems a reasonable mistake to make, after all how the word is constructed (silent -ue, -on-, structure reminiscent of the 'legit' French 'langue'). I was wondering, could there have been any interference from French on the development of the spelling of this purely English word? If so what is this phenomenon called? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False etymology? --Jayron32 04:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of what you're asking (especially the relationship of "tongue" to "langue") is addressed in the article on false friends. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note that EO says "tongue" and "langue" have a common origin... neither one of them being French, of course, but long before that.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also wikt:Tongue. Baseball Bugs' EOD link says the spelling originated in the 14th century. Was the Middle English pronunciation /ˈtɔŋ.ɡə/ or /ˈtɔŋə/ ? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever the consonants, the stressed vowel was almost certainly [ʊ]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it progressed from Old English [tʊŋɡə] to [tʊŋɡ] to [tʊŋ] to [tʌŋ], though the last stages never happened in parts of the North of England. Angr (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, we still say [tʊŋ] here, and in some parts, they say [tɒŋɡ] or even almost [tɒŋɡə] in some areas -- I've never known why. Dbfirs 10:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We say [tʊŋɡ] in Liverpool, and in in most of the North West. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I didn't mention Scouse, but doesn't it start to change after Wigan as you travel East? Dbfirs 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, which is why we call it the North West, because it's believe it or not North and West. Not East. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't thinking of going as far east as Hull, Hell, or even Halifax! Dbfirs 19:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms for deer[edit]

English has a colloquial, unmistakable term for the family of Cervidae - deer. As far as I can see, this is not the case in many other languages. For example, the German word Hirsche means "deer" as well as "stags". What's the term for deer in other languages, and is it unmistakable? Or what else does it mean? Especially, I'm interested how the following dialogue in the movie Bambi (20th minute) has been translated into other languages, with what term for "deer":

Bambi: Mother, you know what?

Mother: What?

Bambi: We're not the only deer in the forest.

Mother: Where did you hear that?

Bambi: Thumper told me.

Mother: Well, he's right. There are many deer in the forest besides us.

--KnightMove (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the scarcity of large mammals in the Philippines, we have only one word for deer in (all?) Filipino languages - usa (pronounced oo-SAH). It used to refer strictly to the three endemic species of the genera Rusa and Hyelaphus in the islands, but it has been adapted to be the direct equivalent of the English word "deer". The Philippine mouse-deer, a chevrotain (Tragulidae) not a true deer (Cervidae), is not called usa despite its English common name, but has its own unique local name - pilandok. There are also no separate words for doe or stag or juveniles, instead the generic words for female/girl/mother or male/boy/father or child/young are used. Bambi has never been translated to our languages, as most of the population understand English.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems: the different names for different species, and the different names for different sexes of the same species. Usually, however, I think there is one term that can serve as a general one (German Hirsch, French cerf, Russian "олень", etc.) and would probably be used in a translation of the film. Interestingly, the original Bambi in the story by Felix Salten was a roe deer (Reh, chevreuil, косуля), but in the Disney film, he is a white-tailed deer (Weißwedelhirsch, Cerf de Virginie, Белохвостый олень). Lesgles (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Scandinavian languages they qualify the general name for animal(s) 'dyr' or 'djur' with specific words like 'rein' for reindeer and 'rå' for roe deer, which as I understand it was the original usage of the english word 'deer'. Mikenorton (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In German everyday speech, Hirsch covers deer species such as the red deer (Rothirsch) and fallow deer (Damhirsch), but not the roe deer, which is called Reh. Confusingly, the German dubbing of Bambi, uses Reh for Bambi and Hirsch for the adult deers, which doesn't make any sense zoologically (see de:Bambi (Film)#Einfluss). --BishkekRocks (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that English has an astonishing number of unrelated words to describe deer of varying sexes, species and stages of development. Off the top of my head, I can think of: stag, buck, hart, hind, doe, pricket, fawn, and there are probably others. It's probably not a surprise that other languages have a variety too. Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pricket? --KnightMove (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, pricket. Deor (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what we call that a "button buck" in Michigan (antlers less than 3 inches, legally an "anterless deer"). Rmhermen (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned it into a disambiguation. Another question: How do you call young mule deer & white tailed deer bucks - does the term "pricket" apply to them? --KnightMove (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn, then yearling or button buck; then spike; then buck. Rmhermen (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Dialectical Differences[edit]

Thank you for a comprehensive Basque page and this opportunity to ask questions

My question concerns online or other resources to improve my comprehension of dialectical differences in Euskara. I am currently at a stage where I am able to follow albisteak in Batua but have difficulty for example in following the Basque soap, Goenkale online. Other online aides like Kerman Mintzalagun and SitePal's text to speech are helpful but do not fulfill the audio-visual support that I believe I need to progress further. Is there any Basque programming that you know of that includes subtitles, so that speech patterns and dialectical variations can be more readily recognized?76.103.195.49 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a thing exists. Written materials aside, you're pretty much on your own with the Euskalkiak in my experience. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having said that, I'm assuming you checked out places like HABE for their material? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This being the language desk, perhaps it'll be tolerated if I point out that you probably mean dialectal, not dialectical. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

In fact there is plenty of materials on the internet, but most of them are in basque (elementary, my dear 76.103.195.49).

In http://www.ahotsak.com you can find audio and video records of almost all the dialects and some of them with the written form (they are working on making the transcription of the rest, please be patient). For example:

Bizkaia http://www.ahotsak.com/amorebieta-etxano/pasarteak/amo-001-002/

Gipuzkoa http://www.ahotsak.com/errezil/pasarteak/erz-014-019/

Aezkoa http://www.ahotsak.com/abaurregaina/pasarteak/aba-001-001/

Oiartzun http://www.ahotsak.com/oiartzun/pasarteak/oia-043-005/

There is plenty of detailed information on the page of Euskaltzaindia: http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/dialektologia

Verbs (Morfologia del Verbo Auxiliar Vasco, not so easy to follow for me, but really complete).

Words (Euskararen Herri Hizkeren Atlasa and Orotariko Euskal Hiztegia: http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/oeh)

Audio records with their written version (Euskal Herriko Hizkuntz Atlasa: Ohiko Euskal Mintzamoldeen Antologia).

In this page in English you can find video, audio and texts in the different dialects of Navarre. http://mediateka.fonoteka.com/orokorra.php?idi=eng&sec=19

And for the detailed description of the dialects you can check the basque wikipedia (Euskalkien eta azpieuskalkien zerrenda) or the following page in basque or Spanish (http://www.hiru.com/lengua-vasca/el-dialecto-bizkaino) or this one (http://mediateka.fonoteka.com/orokorra.php?idi=eng&sec=35&idvar=2:0:0&z=0).

As you can see now is only a matter of time for you to fully understand Goenkale (by the way, in Goenkale they speak mainly batua, maybe the problem is the hika treatment? (dun = da, zekinat = dakit). Look here http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/dok/arauak/Araua_0014.pdf

Enjoy yourself!--Aguirrebarrena (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]