Language desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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 22[edit]

Is there a generic term for these baby bottles?[edit]

They look like this: CLICK HERE They have a little straw-like thing on the inside. Do they have a generic name? SSS (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be called vented bottles.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vented baby bottles are also known as natural flow bottles (named after the popular vented bottle by Dr. Brown) or anti-colic bottles". [1] Who "Dr Brown" is, couldn't establish, but here is his website. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Wikipedia[edit]

Is Wikipedia available in hindi language? If yes then help me to change the language of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:2291:4EEF:0:0:502:28A5 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most languages have their own Wikipedia: if you go to the Front page of this English-language Wikipedia you should see, down the left-hand side, a list of links to other-language Wikipedias, including Hindi. However, each has been separately created from scratch in its respective language, they are not direct translations of each other, so there is no complete version of this English Wikipedia translated into Hindi (or any other language). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.34.253 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a list of some other languages on the left-hand side of the front page, there is more detail at the bottom of the page. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To access the Hindi Wikipedia, go to hi:मुखपृष्ठ. Also see hi:wikt:मुखपृष्ठ. —Stephen (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Word order with "too"[edit]

Which is correct: "They lived in a [much] too small house", "They lived in [much] too small a house" or "They lived in a house [much] too small"? To tell the truth, I'm really confused right now...!--Neufund (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only the second, although I'd probably feel better recasting it to "They lived in a house which was much too small". (British English) Bazza (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would use an "of a" construction: "They lived in much too small of a house" (colloquial), or, even better, "They lived in a house that was much too small" (formal). —Stephen (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say "of a"? "They lived in much too small a house" seems more natural to me. Perhaps the of construction is regional? I agree that the formal construction is better. Dbfirs 16:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a dialectal basis (people have trouble identifying a regional dialect in my speech, but I do have elements of the Southern American dialect), but I prefer using "of" in the above constructions and in phrases such as "a couple of hours", rather than "a couple hours". The latter style jars me when I see or hear it. - Donald Albury 17:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Too small of a house" is not grammatical in my (BrE) dialect. Nor is "a couple hours". --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that neither is standard British English. Are they permissible in American English? Dbfirs 12:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also use the "of a" construction in all contexts; leaving it out feels like an error to me, though I realize it is not. Because number comes before most other adjectives, "too" sounds like it's about to describe "two" things in speech. Standard Canadian English speaker. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "of a" in this context is in the same category of error as "if he had have finished". The included word assists the natural rhythm of the phrase, but that is its only saving grace. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neufund: "They lived in a house that was much too small" is probably the best approach, both written and spoken. "They lived in a much-too-small house" is common vernacular North American spoken English, but would properly require hyphenation for compound adjective when written out, and thus look awkward. In formal writing it'll seem slangish, too. "The lived in much too small a house" qualifies as proper written English, but is a bit stilted. "The lived in much too small of a house" is colloquial and folksy, or perhaps stilted and grandparent-ish, depending on dialect and register; the "of" in it serves no purpose. (It's not the same construction as "a couple of hours", which is conventional; "a couple hours" is a colloquialism, confusion with the construction "a few hours" which is never "a few of hours", probably by way of contraction of "a couple of hours" to "a couple o' hours", "a coupla hours", finally "a couple hours". Parallel constructions don't take that form, e.g. "a number of hours" and "a minimum of hours", "a series of hours", etc., cannot lose the "of".) "They lived in a house much too small" verges on obsolete in contemporary modern English; it's poetic at best, and verges on Yoda-esque ("Hmmm, in a house much too small do they live."). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a house too small" is a construction that one finds in idiom, preserved from older grammars where such a construction was standard. I.e. A Bridge Too Far. --Jayron 32 13:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. That's what I was getting at with "poetic" and "Yoda-esque". "Hmmm, my house too small – at the end of a bridge too far it is." LOL. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton, your remarks seem to fit American English very well. But a few hours in the UK might prove to you that many of your assumptions about "standard", "contemporary modern English" and "common vernacular" simply don't generally hold true. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so. I have not lived in the UK in a really long time (though I had a cute Buckinhamshire accent back when. "Guess wot I got i' me pocke'?"). What I'm going for is MOS:COMMONALITY; i.e., avoid constructions that are colloquial or regional (on both sides; e.g. "a couple seconds" is very common in spoken American English, and you can find a lot of it in blogs and such [2]). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, and one would never hear that expression in the UK. But thanks for the biographic glimpse - we can now all imagine you dancing cheekily with a chimney sweep brush. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not too far from the truth. Lived in Long Crendon and used to go to Brill a lot, I have no idea what's it like today, but back then it was all thatched houses; ours was something like 350 years old. Typical stuff going on in the summer was folk music parties and live Punch & Judy puppet shows. It was like living in 1860, aside from the cars and electricity, and lack of top hats and cholera. Heh. Moved to Bicester later; much more modern – actually got to go a school with more than 20 students. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They tried to make the area trendy, but it never caught on Verney Junction railway station. 86.131.233.223 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation sought for German etwas hinter sich bringen[edit]

What would be the probably most common translation – ideally both in American and British English – for the above expression in the sense of getting rid of an annoying task (e. g. as in "Ich will es endlich hinter mich bringen!")?--Neufund (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it over with? And we sometimes embellish a bit by saying, "Over and done with." I've heard Brits say "Done and dusted" but I don't get the vibe that that has a negative connotation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"to get it over with" is probably most idiomatic; "over and done with" would be my preference, since I like to retain some of the syntactic rhythm of German when I translate. More literally, "to put [something] behind me" or "to get it out of the way" somewhat imply similar sentiments, the second with somewhat more disdain for the task concerned. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]