Language desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12[edit]

Alphabetical order[edit]

We normally skip certain words (for example, articles like "the", "an", "a") when alphabetizing words. So, "The Great Escape" would be alphabetized under "G" instead of "T" ... and we would use "Great Escape" when alphabetizing this phrase. What happens when one of these articles appears in the middle of a phrase, as opposed to the beginning of a phrase? Is the article word still ignored ... or is it treated as any normal, regular word? For example ... "Gone with the Wind" ... is the word "the" ignored ... such that we use "Gone with Wind" ... or do we alphabetize using all four words? Also: When we alphabetize words like Mr., Dr., Mrs., St., Blvd., etc., ... do you use the fully spelled out word ... or the abbreviation letters only? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Only the initial article is ignored in alphabetization. Subsequent articles would be considered in alphabetizing, for example, a title. As for the titles Mr., Dr., etc., they are generally not spelled out in alphabetizing, though this question is obscure enough that the rule might vary from one organization to another. The Chicago Manual of Style has nothing to say about this case. The only situation in which these titles might have to be considered for alphabetization is when they occur as part of a title, such as "The Great Escape of Mr. Smith". This kind of title is fairly rare, and it would be even rarer to have to alphabetize this title with another "The Great Escape of M..." in which 'M' was the beginning of a word other than "Mr." When you are alphabetizing names, you normally omit the title before the name and alphabetize the name surname first, followed by given name(s) after a comma. Titles such as "Mr." and "Dr." are not normally used in alphabetizing names. If they were used, for example to distinguish Mr. Alfred Smith and Dr. Alfred Smith, the title would be placed at the end of the name, and the order would be as follows:

Smith, Alfred, Dr.

Smith, Alfred, Mr.

In the case of street names, I think that the abbreviation would usually not be spelled out, though it is hard to think of a case where it would matter if it were.

Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Ohio State University" and "Ohio Street"? In such a case, I think, I'd spell out Street and alphabetize them in the order I've mentioned them in the preceding sentence. Most indexes are constructed with strict letter-by-letter alphabetization these days, but some older practices, like alphabetizing St. (="Saint") as if it were spelled out and alphabetizing names beginning with Mac, Mc, and M’ as if they were all spelled "Mac", haven't completely died out. Deor (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, I am not talking about just alphabetizing a list of all names with other names ... or a list of all streets with other streets. I am just talking about, in aggregate, alphabetizing a list of "words". For example, you might have a book / film / play / poem title such as "Sunset Blvd." or "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Is the latter example (Mister versus Mr.) alphabetized before or after, say, "Moonstruck" or "Monster's Ball"? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You can't go wrong alphabetizing strictly letter by letter, listing Mr. Smith Goes to Washington after Moonstruck (though other people might do it differently). The title of the first movie/play you mentioned is actually Sunset Boulevard, so the problem doesn't arise. Deor (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note: The film is indeed Sunset Blvd., but also known as (alternate title) Sunset Boulevard. Per IMDb and per AMPAS. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Leonard Maltin's annual movie guidebook does sort "strictly letter by letter, listing Mr. Smith Goes to Washington after Moonstruck". As a user of the book, I find this quite inconvenient. Bearing in mind that other sources like TV listings may feel at liberty to use abbreviations that were not already in a title, so the form I'm looking up may not be the one that Maltin lists. I would rather have to look in just one place to find all titles that start with Dr. or Doctor.

(Note that since Maltin alphabetizes by letters rather than words, the Dr. titles don't even form a contiguous block; Driving Miss Daisy comes in between Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. This also means there isn't a single alphabetical position where it would be appropriate to insert a reminder, "Dr., see also under Doctor." Alphabetization by letters makes sense for dictionaries because it brings forms like "black out" and "blackout" to the same position, but alphabetization by words often works better for other things, like titles.) --Anonymous, 20:41 UTC, February 12, 2008.

RE:[edit]

When using re: within a sentence, does the first word need to start with a capital? Ex: Dr. Smith called re: yesterday's board meeting and would like a report faxed to him. or: Dr. Smith called re: Yesterday's board meeting, etc. 24.172.10.35 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use a lower-case "y" in the word "yesterday" ... think of the word re: as a substitute for "regarding". Just place "regarding" in the sentence ... and that will show that "yesterday" needs lower-case and no capitalization. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You also don't need the colon after re. Deor (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound advice, but strictly speaking re is (originally) short for the Latin expression In re (in the matter of). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that doesn't affect the answers. Some people seem to think that "re" always takes a colon because they mostly see it used in things like memo headers:

                             To:   All Staff
                             From: Big Cheese
                             Re:   Lollygagging in the hallways

or in email headers that follow a similar format, although they use "Re:" in a peculiar way. But in an ordinary sentence, if you use "re", it doesn't need to be treated any differently than "to" or "from". --Anonymous, 22:35 UTC, February 12, 2008.

Correct grammar / wording[edit]

Is it ever correct (or is it poor grammar) to use a phrase such as "alone together" or "together alone"? For example ... the two parents leave the house and have the older child babysit the younger child. Can we say that: "Jack and John were left alone together." ... or ... "Jack and John were left together alone." ...? I am quite certain there are other, better ways to phrase this concept. But are these examples grammatically correct or improper? (Grammatically speaking, is "alone together" a contradiction / oxymoron / incompatible / whatever word linguists use?) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think that "alone together" is such a commonly used idiom that it doesn't matter that its components have apparently contradictory meanings. Everyone knows that the phrase means "together but apart from others". As for "together alone", that one sounds odd. It does not sound natural to my American ears. I would say or write "together by themselves". Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it matters, I second Mr. polo, except "together by themselves" doesn't really float my boat, either. I think that if you don't want to use "alone together", you have to bite the bullet and explain or otherwise make it clear. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget Together Alone, Together Alone, Together Alone, and Together Alone. --LarryMac | Talk 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in no wise a question of grammar. It is purely about choice of words. The apparent contradiction between the words is only apparent, and the expression is perfectly clear and expresses the meaning required. To me, "alone together" sounds much more natural than "together alone", mostly because "together" far more often follows what it qualifies than precedes. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew help[edit]

What does חשיבות לא הובהרה mean? It was used as the reason for deletion of Hebrew Wikipedia's article on Richard Sandrak. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Importance not made clear"? AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no assertion of notability. Thanks! —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waterwings?[edit]

What are those things on the children's arms most commonly called in English? I have heard they are called waterwings, but someone claimed it was a neologism. JIP | Talk 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both American Heritage and Merriam-Webster (which dates the term back to 1907!) call them "water wings", so it's not a neologism, but it is two words. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we called them arm-bands when we were little, but that could just be a colloquialism ny156uk (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always known them as 'arm bands' (British English), and only recently have I realised that the American English phrase 'water wings' refers to the same thing. I was expecting something much more dramatic from that :) I'm pretty sure 'arm bands' is standard English in the UK. Skittle (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always called them floaties. —Keenan Pepper 19:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to Water wings, added a bunch of links from other articles, and removed the "neologism" and "orphan" tags from the articles. Floaties redirects there (as does Swimmies), and Armband (whither Arm band redirects) has a hatnote pointing the interested reader there. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water wings used to be something else. (There is a picture here.) That's why I never knew what to call the armband things, either. I have a dim memory of seeing water wings of the old-fashioned kind in an animated cartoon once, and that puts them into the 30s, anyway, right? --Milkbreath (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a child in the 1950s and early 60s I remember water wings of a similar shape to this picture in Milkbreath's link, but plastic and brightly coloured. They were precursors of the modern armbands as aids for children learning to swim: I don't remember these existing until it was too late for me to benefit from them. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I think I've seen those other sort of water wings in some old American programs, adding to my general feeling that 'water wings' should describe something more exciting than armbands. Interesting that 'swimmies' should redirect there, as 'swimmies' always referred to swimming trunks/costumes in my youth. Room for hilarious consequences there I think. Skittle (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Macbeth's Sin[edit]

Question moved to humanities desk. Gwinva (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

«Until the Civil War, people said, "The United States are." It was only after the war that people began to say, "The United States is."» I've heard this claim many times, most recently from one of my college professors, but is there any truth to it? It seems like one of those cherished linguistic myths that's just too cute to be true. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States article mentions this subject briefly, and includes a reference to this item from Language Log. Synopsis: the claim relating the change specifically to the Civil War was made as early as 1887, but it seems to have been a gradual transition. (However, this doesn't mean it didn't start after the war.) --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, February 12, 2008.

Italian translation required[edit]

I'm sure this isn't really a translation site, but from what I've heard and seen, they are mostly rubbish, and I don't know any, so I can here to the international forum of genii, to ask your help. i want a translation from english to italian, so I can say to someone 'I picked you some flowers.' Or something like that. Anyone have any idea? 172.142.190.155 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to use babelfish. it's not perfect but it seems to get the point. (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) your translation in italian would be ... Li ho selezionati alcuni fiori ... no idea if that's accurate as i don't speak Italian! ny156uk (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that should be "Le ho selezionato dei fiori", which would mean "I selected some flowers for you", with "you" in the formal address form. This might be appropriate if you chose the flowers for your boss, for example. If you mean "picked" in the sense of "collected, plucked", then you might try "Le ho colto dei fiori". If you are saying this to a friend, family member, or lover, then you want the familiar form, "Ti ho colto dei fiori". However, I am not expert at Italian, so this may not be quite right, in which case probably someone will correct me. Marco polo (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco polo not an expert in Italian? :-) Well, I would say all your translations are correct, so you are being too modest. If you are talking to more than one person, then it is "Vi ho colto/selezionato dei fiori". --Lgriot (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Now, so don't have to bother you again, can anyone here suggest a way I can learn italian? I don't really have the time to study it at school, and in my experience most foreign languages taught at school are only useful for passing exams. Something free, or at least really cheep, and easy to arrange would be very much prefered.172.201.175.243 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why has my IP number changed?172.201.175.243 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your internet service provider may assign you a new IP address every time you log on, or you may be routed through a proxy server that does so. As for how to learn Italian cheaply, I have had fairly good results with language-learning recordings (cassettes, CDs, or mp3s). Of course, not all language-learning recordings are any good. In my experience, the good ones have you do drills to internalize the pronunciation and grammar. In the process, you learn vocabulary as well. I see from your IP address that you are in England. In the States, the larger public libraries have a range of language-learning audio recordings. These are free to borrowers. If public libraries in England offer such recordings, you might test a few different Italian-language kits and find the one that works best for you. You are likely to have a wider range if you go to a library in a large city than in a small town. Marco polo (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOPI[edit]

What does NOPI stand for or mean in motorsports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.35.194 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koogeling gets me: Number One Parts Incorperated. Whatever that means... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koogeling? —Keenan Pepper 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly an error for Choogling. The Dude abides. Deor (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense; it's an error for kugeling. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koogeling is the activity of deploying a popular search engine to determine the meaning of the term "Kugelhupf". It must not be confused with "Yahoopf", which is not kosher anyway. Sorry for my infantile and nonencyclopedic joys in being multilingual. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey tango foxtrot! —Keenan Pepper 04:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]