Language desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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.

July 3[edit]

Sourcing for a neologism[edit]

Texit, gratifyingly, redirects to Texas secession movements. Who coined the word? I think this information would be a useful addition to the article. Tevildo (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article[1] claims it was coined by some guy named Miller, in the wake of the Brexit vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guy named Miller is apparently Daniel Miller, also mentioned in the article Tevildo linked to. And note: NHexit, Hexit, Calexit, Vexit, vexing ... ---Sluzzelin talk 11:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian also associates it with Miller, but Knowyourmeme cites Alex Jones on 16 May 2016, and the Guardian article doesn't explicitly say that Miller invented it. Does the Houston Chronicle article make a more positive attribution? (It's paywalled from here). Tevildo (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texit is such an obvious analogy to Brexit that it surely must have been independently coined hundreds of times by hundreds of different people—basically, by anyone familiar with and interested in the Texas independence movement. To me, there doesn't seem much point in specifying who got it into print first. Loraof (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Rahbari, according to our article on Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in the cloud? on the cloud?[edit]

What's the correct preposition re: cloud storage of data? My search via Google was inconclusive. Does the usage perhaps differ between US and UK variants of English? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US here. Only ever heard "in". StuRat (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the cloud is the data repository, it only makes sense to say your data is "in" the cloud. "On" the cloud would imply that your data is perched atop the cloud, i.e. outside of it. Logic doesn't always enter into it, though. And we don't say we're "in" the internet, we say we're "on" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the general rule would be to treat it like the physical object it's named after. This breaks down when there's no physical representation, like "the Internet". StuRat (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data goes on the computer? In the UK it's always "in" the cloud. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia too. But "on" the hard disk. Maybe some of the slippage is about computer logging on/log in? On the computer is like being "on" the phone. Manytexts (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have frequently heard (and can find using Google also) the phrase "save to the cloud" Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One always has to save to somewhere (the cloud, the desktop, the computer, the hard drive, the USB, Christ-knows-wherever-else-these-days). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's bad things happening here[edit]

It's very common to see people saying/writing things like "There's many people who agree with me". Some prefer to say "There are many people ...". My inner pedant generally prefers the latter, but I'm sure I've used the former in unthinking moments.

Has the "there's + plural" construction become acceptable in all contexts, and if so, why? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not in all contexts, but see wikt:there's, which gives a third meaning of this contraction: "(proscribed) contraction of there are See there're." (and see also Angr's phonological explanation when you asked a similar question over seven years ago :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such a long memory you have, Sluz. Thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I just read this paper a few weeks ago. It's a very detailed and well-written article, but long story short, here's a sentence from the conclusion: the tendency of spoken language to use less elaboration and more contraction, combined with the processing constraints of spoken language, results in the formulaic use of contracted existential there + be (there’s) without conscious reference to the prescriptive rule of agreement. Angr's phonological analysis isn't mentioned, but it may very well hold water. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sigma. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]