Language desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 11 >

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 10[edit]

Is there a difference between a "human" and a "person"?[edit]

There are so many humans here!
There are so many people here!
There are so many persons here!
There are so many animals here!

Although the second option seems to be most preferable, why aren't the first and third used as often? If a human has hair lice and body lice on himself, then can "animals" be used to refer to the human and his lice? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first item is more like a "species". The second is normal usage. The third is more like legalese. The fourth is not typically used like the others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that humans is the basic term, whereas people is a common and casual term. Persons is official or legal terminology and animals is the scientific classification and/or derogatory statement. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)

Well, in a work of science fiction where there are multiple intelligent species, you could say things like "there are 80 people here—20 Klingons, 20 humans, 39 Ferengi, and a Vulcan". But outside of such a context, I would say that "people" is the basic word while "humans" is used as a variation or to emphasize what species we are. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second feels normal, and is what I would say. If you were standing next to me and said the first, I might (if I was familiar with you) jokingly ask if you were an alien. It would feel more natural in a scientific context, e.g. "humans first settled in this place so many years ago". "Persons" is very much legalese. As for the fourth, humans are certainly animals scientifically, but it would not be the first time where the scientific definition of a term is slightly different from the common usage. Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the legal complexity of corporate persons (by which organisations are, in some circumstances, considered to be persons), there is no real difference between a person and a human (unless you want to get very philosophical, and discuss the links between humanity and personality). The words tend to be used in different circumstances, with human referring to the species and to the members of the species as a group, while person is used when referring to an individual. So you might talk about the excessive number of humans on the planet - but about the people at your birthday party. The common plural of person is now people: the older form - persons - is not in common use except in legal and very formal speech. While humans are animals in a biological sense, in common speech animals would be understood to be other than humans. We all carry very large numbers of parasites and symbionts, and there are more bacteria in a human body than there are human body cells. That doesn't make us any less human, and most people would be offended at the suggestion that they are animals because of that. Wymspen (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that you can have "a people" (plural "peoples"), which refers one or more groups of people (nations, tribes, etc). Iapetus (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles titled human and person of which you are allowed to read and come to your own conclusions. From those articles there are links to other articles which clarify various concepts or expand upon various ideas therein. --Jayron 32 23:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creature in Middle English[edit]

Why have most English words derived from Latin creāre, creātus had two syllables in the root which suggests the underlying Middle English pronunciation cr[eː.aː]te, while the modern pronunciation of creature with one syllable in the root suggests the underlying Middle English pronunciation cr[eː]ture or cr[ɛː]ture. Why did that happen?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle English appears to have borrowed it from Old French (as it bears no relationship to the Old English equivalent, gesceap). In that case, it came into English with longer pronunciation (which is indicated by the less common related words retaining that form), but this has been lost in the most common word at some point. Wymspen (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But modern French has créat- in all such words, that is two syllables, and Anglo-Norman as well seems to have had two syllables, as its variant spelling criature confirms (but no *creture in Anglo-Norman).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The archaic pronunciation was /kɹiˈeɪtjɚ/ (American), /kɹiˈeɪtjə(ɹ)/ (British). If the stress had remained on the second syllable, it would have remained three syllables, but the stress moved up to the first syllable /ˈkɹiətjɚ/. The two vowels /ˈi.ə/ were unstable in English and were quickly leveled off to /ˈkɹitjɚ/. —Stephen (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By C18th words in -ture lapsed from /tjɚ/ to /tɚ/, hence creature came to be pronounced 'critter'. The restoration of the /tjɚ/ was probably due to schoolmasters. Djbcjk (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Djbcjk: Yes, I know about that. But didn't you mean like creter, with a long vowel?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen G. Brown: Could you, please, cite some sources? Why and when did that happen to this word?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is from wikt:creature on en.wiktionary. The statement concerning the archaic pronunciation was added by an anon here, so I can't contact him for more information. The only information I have on this anon is: User:140.180.250.35, nat-oitwireless-outside-vapornet3-k-23.Princeton.EDU, AS88 PRINCETON-AS - Princeton University, US, 140.180.0.0/16 —Stephen (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some research in Google Books I've found out some contradictory statements. This dictionary claims the word has had only two syllables. However, this and this books claim that at least in two instances the word had three syllables. And this says during Chaucer it even had four syllables. As for the time, 18th-century dictionaries ultimately shows two syllables as in the modern pronunciation, so it must have happened before that century. Additionally, I could find an interesting rhyme creature/scrypture in Play 28 of N-Town Plays, and that was in the 15th century already.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish translation advice: Stridsvagnen/Stridsvagn/Stridsvagnarna[edit]

Stridsvagnarna means Tanks.
Stridsvagn means Tank.
Does Stridsvagnen mean A Tank?

Thank you. --Sergeant Stringent (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stridsvagnen means "the tank." —Stephen (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen is right. "A tank" would be "en stridsvagn". DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And stridsvagnarna means the tanks. "Tanks" would be stridsvagnar. You can read more about declension of Swedish nouns at Swedish grammar#Nouns. Stridsvagn is a second declension noun (common gender, takes -ar in the plural). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OT: That's funny, Streitwagen means chariot in German (Merkava, the Israeli line of tanks, also means chariot.) And tyderäkning from you previous Q is obviously cognate with Zeitrechnung Asmrulz (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]