Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 8

Singular or Plural verb with the names of sports teams, bands, countries etc. in American English

In American English do you use singular or plural verb with the names of sports teams (e.g. The New York Red Bulls), bands (e.g. The Beatles), countries (e.g. the Netherlands, the United States) etc. ? ~2026-38819-66 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

See MOS:PLURALS Meters (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a style guide. I'm intrested in more descriptive approach ~2026-38766-47 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a style guide, but it explicitly tells you what the norm is for American English. Meters (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It says nothing about bands, though.

Also, according to this website https://www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2022/03/23/my-team-is-winning-or-are-they/ plural verbs are also possible with the names of teams in American English not only when the name is short. ~2026-38766-47 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Band names are collective names. The list in MOS:PLURALS is not all inclusive. And if you already have a source for this why are you asking? Meters (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The source doesn't answer all my question, so my question makes perfect sense ~2026-38896-33 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Rolling Stone , an American magazine, often uses plural verb forms with bands whose name is singular:

• Black Sabbath chronicle their triumphant final concert in the upcoming documentary The End of the End.
• Do you think that Chickenfoot are ever going to tour again?
• Sugar Ray Announce First Studio Album in 10 Years

But singular verb forms are also seen, occasionally:

• Starship was in Norfolk for a gig opening for Survivor and Boston.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 08:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

We're seeing the European style in reference to the FIFA World Cup, as in something like "USA were eliminated" whereas in American style it would be "USA was eliminated". In general in America, you'll see plural team names but singular city names, as in "The Dodgers have won" but "Los Angeles has won". And this is another question that tends to turn up here from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The Netherlands and The United States are a bit special, as they are grammatically plural (most country's names are grammatically singular). Both refer to a federation of provinces/states: the seven United Netherlands (formed in 1588), the thirteen United States of America (formed in 1776). The Netherlands are a unitary state now, not a federation, and the endonym changed to the singular in 1795, but many exonyms remain plural. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

A plural form remains to this day in the endonymic designation Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, stamped in gold on Dutch passports.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"Yet I do not look upon these United States as a finished product." DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Part of the problem with answering this is that American usage is not "all bands are singular" or "all bands are plural". The Beatles are. R.E.M. is. Generally, the inherent plural or singular nature of the name controls the verb. But exceptions occur. Especially when the band name is being used as shorthand for "the members of" that band. Countries are usually conceived of as singular in American English ("France is"), even when the name is inherently plural ("The Netherlands is"). User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Women's names

Why were women not referred to by their first names but by the names of their husbands instead, and when did this fall out of fashion? I'm reading an article right now about the purchase of a painting in 1965, and it says it "was acquired by the late Mrs. Louis F. Hyde, founder and donor of the collection, in 1930." We know her name was Charlotte. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it's been within the last century or so; and I think this question has come up before on the ref desk, but I couldn't say when. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure it has. Woman were considered property due to marriage, yadda yadda. I still don't know the answer, or why it changed. I'm also curious if most women went along with it or rebelled against it in earlier decades before feminism caught on. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Social norms can get complicated. It might have been considered rude to address married women by their first names - undue familiarity, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The puritanism goes deep, it seems. Even into the language itself. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The social norms were related to the legal doctrine of coverture, each influencing the other. The struggle for women's suffrage played a role in the process of change.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

And this lasted into the 1970s in the US (credit cards, etc.)? Who thought it was a good idea to erase the legal existence of another human being upon marriage? Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That's overstating the issue, methinks. Of course they continued to exist as separate legal entities, fully responsible to the law for their behaviour, just as men were. It was merely a social convention that they were referred to as Mrs John Smith rather than as Mary Smith or Mary Whatever-her-maiden-surname-was. And not even in all contexts. I see Ruth Ellis is being posthumously pardoned, decades after being executed for murder. She's always been known to the public as Ruth Ellis, not "Mrs George Ellis". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

In American we'd say she got a commutation rather than a pardon. I have never before heard of commutation after completion of a sentence! —Antonissimo (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

My use of the bald word "pardoned" could be a tad misleading. As written, it could mean she would have been released from prison had she not unfortunately been executed, or died in the meantime (she would have been 99). But in fact it's a "conditional pardon", which substituted the death penalty with life imprisonment (not that this symbolic act does her dust any good). As you say, a commutation, but British arcane legalspeak prevails, particularly where the sovereign is involved. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The use of Mrs. {Husband's Name} came from coverture. When women could not sign legal agreements, a way to subvert the obvious suppressive legal system was to sign "covered by" the husband as Mrs. {Husband's Name}. Signing that way wasn't the suppressive system. It was a subversion of the suppressive legal system. Once women could sign legal agreements, the need for coverture evaporated and any further use was by choice, not by requirement. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's still used in the American Bible Belt by funeral homes and obituary writers. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Status, respect, protection. The 'past is another country'. Also, with a donation, it's often likely that the donation is and remains in the name they gave it in. Here is a history: https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.harvard.edu/dist/e/935/files/2025/11/making_a_name_womens_surnames_at_marriage_and_beyond.pdf Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

L. P. Hartley was right, but this isn't the past. Witness the far-right revival of the new and improved tradwife. The narrative is still alive. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

So, now are you arguing, it hasn't changed. But it has, and as always there are some who do not like change or like the change that happened. See also, 1977's "Mrs Man" . Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Read your source you sent me. It changed and changed back. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I read it. You began this with "when did this fall out of fashion?" If your subtext was 'it never fell out of fashion', you hid it well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No idea what you are on about, but please continue, as it is amusing. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I prefer you if you read the sources I gave. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I did. It said women moved forward in the 1970s and then moved back in the 1990s. "Perhaps surname-keeping seems less salient as a way of publicly supporting equality for women than it did in the late 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps a general drift to more conservative social values has made surname-keeping less attractive." This is somewhat interesting from a USAian perspective, as this was the time when the far right made a significant push into the internet and politics. And, something I only re-discovered last year (although I first found out about it in 1988, I had forgotten it): in the US, the computer hobbyist movement in the eighties was infused with Christian fundamentalists (there's several books about this that I've been meaning to write articles about but haven't had the time just yet). I recall that Peter Thiel came out of this subculture, as did many others now promoting a return to conservative values. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

But keeping the same surname is not the same as being known as "Mrs. Louis F. Hyde", it is generally being known as, Mrs. Charlotte Hyde, or Ms. Charlotte Hyde, or just, Charlotte Hyde. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware, but I addressed your source and the general tenor of why feminism rose and fell within that time. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll note again, this began with a question about using, 'Mrs [Husband's full name]'. I don't think anyone was responding to you about the cultural practice of using only the husband's surname. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Except you did, which is why you posted a link to "Making a Name: Women’s Surnames at Marriage and Beyond". Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I confused you but, no, that was not my intention. I was trying to answer the question you posed, not another question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Glad that's sorted. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you care to read it in literature, see Virginia Woolf's, "Mrs Dalloway" 1925. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Will do. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The broad answer is the second half of the 20th century. This was a gradual, and in some places (as referred to in comments above) not fully completed, social change. See Women's liberation movement. I always understood the reason as part of the legal doctrine of Coverture. A married woman was not a separate individual from her husband for most legal and social purposes but rather part of a couple of which he was the head/formal representative. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

In a related topic, Al Letson recently inteviewed Bryan Stevenson about the phenomenon of "not fully completed, social change". Stevenson emphasized the importance of narrative, which really struck home for me. In the US, the narrative of women's liberation hasn't changed. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

For the immediate post-War upper-middle class in Adelaide, South Australia, a milieu with which I am vaguely familiar and would surely be similar to the South of England, who you were married to was important to women, particularly widows and most particularly war widows. So "Jane Fotheringham-Smythe" could be nobody whereas "Mrs Aubrey Fotheringham-Smythe DSO" (fictitious names) had clout. Your social standing was determined by to whom you were married. Being married for love to an honest bricklayer was social suicide while snagging a KC was a passport to the Women's Pages of the better dailies. Doug butler (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful, thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking the husband's post-nominal letters is not something I've ever seen before. If a woman married Gilbert Blake VC CBE DSO, wiould she not be simply "Mrs Gilbert Blake" rather than "Mrs Gilbert Blake VC CBE DSO"? And what if she had letters after her own name in her own right? How would they all be sorted? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I confess the "DSO" was a confection, but close to the truth. I would have to check some WWG records to be certain. Doug butler (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking a husband's prenominal title of address, on the other hand, was common (Mrs. Captain Waters, Mrs. Revd. Tuson, Mrs. Doctor Fetchler, Mrs. Prof. Shattuck).  ​‑‑Lambiam 02:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems to have been that in the past, surnames alone did not change. So, a married woman could either be called Mrs. [Husband's full name] or Miss [own full (maiden) name]. So for example, Gracie Allen was never called Gracie Burns, but she was called Mrs. (George) Burns, and was also often called "Miss Allen." I'm not entirely clear why instead having women change their surnames to their husbands names was seen as more liberating, but for whatever reason it was? ~2026-39649-33 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It gets more complicated where public figures are concerned. Consider Marilyn Monroe, who was born Norma Jeane Mortenson, then became Norma Jean Baker, later adopting the first name Marilyn and her mother's maiden name Monroe. But for legal purposes, she remained Norma Jeane, as in the USO identification card when she was married to Joe DiMaggio, in which she was labeled as "Norma Jeane DiMaggio". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

July 10

Reference of relative clauses to several sentence elements

The following sentence is from a draft U.S. bill:

The provisions of this section do not include doses that result from planned occupational dose limit extensions or from planned special exposures that are within the limits for planned special exposures, and that are reported under § 20.2204.

Do the relative clauses ("that are within..." and "that are reported...") refer only to "from planned special exposures" or also to "planned occupational dose limit extensions"? Thank you! BlackEyedLion (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I have solved the problem myself. I did not see that the two sentence elements in question are part of a relative clause themselves. The second relative clause refers to "doses" in the main clause whereas the first one refers to the element immediately in front of it only. --BlackEyedLion (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It remains a bit strange. Do the provisions not include the specified doses, or do they not apply to these doses? Indeed, the clause "that are within the limits for planned special exposures" seems to refer to "doses", not "exposures". But what kind of entities are reported under § 20.2204? Doses? In any case, it would be wise to reformulate the sentence so that it is less baffling, for example by repeating "doses that result" following "or".  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The relevant content is here. So it's about reporting incidents where someone may be exposed to a dose of radiation. §20.2204 is about reports required for planned special exposures. So if you reported a planned special exposure and the planned dose was conformed to, then you don't have to report the incident. I don't particularly like the use of "include" either, but I think it's a matter of opinion. --~2026-39080-88 (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

CJK characters

Not sure if this is a language question or a computing question; feel free to send it to WP:RDC if you think that better.

CJK characters#Character repertoire says that non-Chinese-character glyphs, such as hiragana and katakana and hangul, are not strictly "CJK characters". The statement is unsourced. Is it accurate? If so, why is "CJK characters" sometimes defined in such a manner? I always assumed that it referred to all the writing systems used in these languages, aside from Latin transliteration, since they're specific to these languages and not needed for any character set not intended for use with these languages. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

No, the characters are defined by their logographic system (of Chinese origin), not by which language they're used for. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The statement could have been more straightforward, "[The characters of] other scripts ..., such as hiragana and katakana and hangul, are not CJK characters." A citation might be needed for the subsequent claim that "CJK character sets almost invariably include them". The 12 Unicode blocks for the more than 100,000 "CJK Unified Ideographs" do not include the hiragana and katakana Unicode blocks or the five hangul blocks.  ​‑‑Lambiam 02:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

July 15

Jamaica pepper

Not sure if this or the humanities desk is more appropriate. I am looking at a spice-mix recipe in Margaret Stout's Cookery for Northern Wives (1925) published in the Shetland Islands (see here). The recipe contains 1/4 oz allspice, 1/4 oz cloves, 1/4 oz ginger, 1/4 oz white pepper, 1/4 oz black pepper, 1/8 oz Jamaica pepper, and 1/8 oz cinnamon. I understand Jamaica pepper to be another name for allspice, so am unsure why the recipe contains both allspice and Jamaica pepper. Does anyone have any insight? Whonting (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder whether allspice might have meant a spice mix at that time in Europe?... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus on this, but I did find notes that it is important that the last three ingredients (including the Jamaica spice) are not used in the initial meatball mixture. They are added later as a binder or surface/gravy coating. Therefore, it is possible she took one recipe for the meatballs and another for the coating and slapped them together. The two recipes used different names for the same spice. ~2026-35239-54 (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Akkadian text in Lupin III: The First (2019)

A few years ago, I encountered this piece of Akkadian in Lupin III: The First (2019). I've been periodically attempting to transcribe and translate it ever since I found it, but there is one character that still eludes me, and I was hoping someone might be able to help identify it. It's the last character of line 1, and also the last character of word 2 in line 5. What I have is here:

Transcription

1 𒐈 𒈠𒊒𒍝𒀀𒌈 𒊭 𒂵𒊭(?)
2 𒀀𒈾 𒅅𒇷𒅁𒋛
3 𒈠𒊒𒍑𒌈 𒉺𒉌𒌈
4 𒇷𒊭𒀭 𒁾𒉿𒉎 𒀭𒉌𒉎
5 𒀀𒈾 𒂵𒊭(?) 𒋗𒀀𒋾
6 𒅗𒀊𒋫

With the missing character being denoted as (?). This effort has been hampered by the fact that different fonts from different periods have radically different forms, hence the unusual appearance of 𒊒 in the text which can be seen if one uses a Neo-Assyrian font (I have been using this site for this.) Any possible candidates for the character would be helpful, at this point I'm just baffled by what it could possibly be. Thanks all! GalacticShoe (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

U+12108(GIR2) or U+1230C(U GUD) look like the closest potential matches to me, but depending on how the text was constructed (redrawn from an existing example, pasted based on aesthetics from a dictionary, or something else) it may or may not reflect actual Akkadian, of course. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Eluchil! The former 𒄈 does look extraordinarily similar and is my top candidate now. My only concern is that it doesn't appear to have a phonetic value; according to the Wiktionary entry, it is a Sumerogram of patrum ("dagger, knife"), which I'm having trouble fitting into the transliteration. I am fairly certain that this is meant to be actual Akkadian, as lines 3 and 4 are composed of proper Akkadian words and make grammatical sense, but I have not as of yet completed a full transliteration, normalization, or translation. For what it's worth, this is what I have so far:

Transliteration (updated as per Amble's comment)

1 3 ma-ru-ṣa-a-tum ša (ga/qa)-(ša/na) GIR₂
2 a-na ek-li-ip-se
3 ma-ru-uš-tam pa-ni-tam
4 li-ša-an DUB-pi-im an-ni-im
5 a-na (ga/qa)-(ša/na) GIR₂ šu-a-ti
6 ka-(ab/ap)-(da2/ṭa2/ta)

Normalization (updated as per Amble's comment)

3 maruṣātum ša ? ?
ana Eklipse (Eclipse)
maruštam pānītam
lišān tuppim annîm
ana ? ? šuāti
?

GalacticShoe (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The word "(eg/ek/eq/ig/ik/iq)-(li/le)-(ib/eb/ip/ep)-(se/si)" in the second line is presumably "Eclipse", a MacGuffin in the movie. The word containing the mystery character and the word in the last line might be something similar. --Amble (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

So, besides Engrish and Flançais, we would also now have Assylian... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I never even considered that a non-Akkadian "loanword" (if it can even be called that here) might be a possibility; trying to fit this into an Akkadian framework will be mildly wonky to say the least. Thanks Amble! GalacticShoe (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It crossed my mind that the creators might be using apparently meaningful Akkadian words that sound like something else meaningful in Japanese, along the lines of Mots d'Heures: Gousses, Rames: The d'Antin Manuscript. Having no Japanese, I cannot actually tell. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I find it unlikely. I know just enough Akkadian (one university semester) and Japanese (grew up in Japan but went to an English-speaking school) to say that this is at least somewhat grammatically-coherent Akkadian that wouldn't make sense in Japanese. GalacticShoe (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's at least semi-coherent in Akkadian, can you attempt a rough translation? It's not about a dog who walks into a bar, is it? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195? ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Since it's missing parts that would make it a full sentence (in particular, as far as I know there are no verbs in what I've normalized), I will try to break it down word for word.

maruṣātum: nominative plural form of feminine maruṣtum meaning "evil, distress". Combined with the previous 3, I presume the subject of this sentence is "three evils".

ša: either "of" or "that"/"which"

ana: "that"

maruštam: accusative form of maruštum, which has the same meaning as maruṣtum. This may actually be maruštum, since 𒌈 can be either "tum" or "tam", I put the accusative since I considered that more plausible at the time, but with the new reading of Eklipse, I am less sure.

pānītam: accusative of pānītum, meaning "earlier, previous". Once again might be pānītum.

maruštum/am pānītum/am: presumably this would mean "previous/earlier evil".

lišān: construct state of lišānum meaning "language, speech"

tuppim: genitive state of tuppum meaning "tablet"

annîm: genitive state of annûm meaning "this"

lišān tuppim annîm: "the words of this tablet"

šuāti: "that"

I'm not even sure if this is one sentence or two, but if any verbs can be discerned either from the cuneiform or from the movie, it should clarify things immensely. GalacticShoe (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Could "(ga/qa)-(ša/na) GIR" and "ka-(ab/ap)-(da2/ṭa2/ta)" be the names of characters or places from the film? Canada and copter come to mind, but I don't know the story at all. --Amble (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It could be, I think I'll have to go through the movie again and see if it provides any context clues. GalacticShoe (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

July 16

Ordering

Does Aymar Charles d'Alleizette and others of his ilk go under the As or the Ds? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

In the end it comes down to how the sources list it, so if they list him under the Ds, then that’s what you should do, but without looking at the sources I’d say A. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 02:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

In similar cases, we generally place such names in categories under the As (see, e.g, Category:16th-century French lawyers, Category:Members of the Chamber of Peers of the Bourbon Restoration, Category:French biophysicists). However, our practice is not entirely consistent (Category:20th-century French chess players).  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand we tend to put their Italian equivalents under De, Del, Di or whatever. See Category:Male actors from Rome, for example. --Antiquary (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

That makes me think the determining factor is capitalization? Another pair of examples, the Dutch names with Van get files under V, but the German names that have von do not. In both the French and German cases, I think neither the d' nor the von are considered to actually be part of the surnames - when the surname alone is mentioned, are they not omitted? ~2026-39649-33 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

We often refer to Vincent van Gogh as just Van Gogh, despite the van being lowercase if you’re typing out the full name (although the van is capitalized if you’re just typing the surname). We refer to the manifold discovered by Willem de Sitter as de Sitter space, rather than Sitter space. I can’t think of any context where the prefixes are omitted?

As an aside, this section of the Tussenvoegsel article gives a bit more insight into the matter, at least from the Dutch-language side of it. It seems you’re right about the capitalization (my initial thought was separate words determine it, like d’Alleizette being all one word whereas van Gogh is two, but your explanation makes more sense). Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 20:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A it is then. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The French and German prepositions appear to be considered part of the name in d'Alembert's equation, d'Alembert's principle and the d'Alembert operator, as well as in Von Neumann algebra, Von Neumann architecture and Von Neumann universe. There are also the de Branges's theorem, de Vaucouleurs's law, von Baer's laws of embryology and the first von der Leyen Commission. It appears that there is no simple generally observed rule.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't use the capital V (per se) in any of those von Neumann articles; the V is capital when it's in the first word of the sentence. The V is capped in the article name because it's in sentence case. It looks like some of the others have an incorrect {{lowercase}} template — I'll go fix those. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

July 18

Rodeeo or rodayo

THere's an ad currently on Australian TV where a character, when complimented on doing something good, says "It's not my first rodeeo, or is that rodayo?" Which is it? And why? Our aticle lists both as pronunciations, without clarification. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, Spanish has /roˈdeo/ [roˈð̞e.o], but English tends to have problems with a simple /e/ [e] sound to begin with. The first pronunciation seems based on English orthography, while the second is an approximation of the Spanish. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My guess is that HiLo is contrasting /ˈroʊdi.oʊ/ with /roʊˈdeɪ.oʊ/. I don't think anyone says /roʊˈdiː.oʊ/. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Just happened to be passing by and it occurred to me that someone somewhere in Australia might still drive to a RO-dee-o in their battered old Holden Ro-DAY-o (which is how it was pronounced in the ads on TV). --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 04:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

With the DAY in Ro-DAY-o as /dæɪ/ of course--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 04:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)?

I would say in American English it's typically "ROH-dee-oh", although Rodeo Drive in L.A. is more like the Spanish - which is funny considering how Angelinos butcher other Spanish names, such as San Pedro as "san PEE-droh" and Figueroa as "figure-oh-uh". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Peeve alert -- Angelenos with the e. Not little angels. Would be Angeleño in Spanish. --Trovatore (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

But has any Pope ever made the pun? DuncanHill (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Rodeo Drive is in Beverly Hills, they'll have you know! as is Cañon Drive, whose tilde is silent. —Antonissimo (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Neil Diamond raised the question in the song "You're So Sweet, Horseflies Keep Hangin' Round Your Face" (1969), iirc. —Antonissimo (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

July 19

Translate headstone inscription from Hebrew to English

Grass Valley Pioneer Jewish Cemetery monument in Hebrew

I just took this photo which I have added to Grass Valley Pioneer Jewish Cemetery. Can a Hebrew speaker provide a translation? I appreciate it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Even on a grave stone, I suppose it might possibly be Yiddish. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The plain Hebrew letter aleph, א‎, occurs rarely in Yiddish orthography. Instead, the Yiddish alphabet has two vowel letters, אַ‎ and אָ‎, of which the first is in fact the most common letter in Yiddish texts, followed in frequency by the vowels י‎, ע‎ and ו‎. The absence of the most frequent letter and just a single occurrence of the third argue against Yiddish.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I cannot claim to know Hebrew, but Google's OCR gives the following characters:

OCR

בן
שלמה בן רפאל
שהלך לעולמו
ביום ה טז כסליו
בשנת תרלט לפק
תנצבה

Looking over the image I'm for the most part inclined to agree, but that first ב looks somewhat like a פ and also apparently כסליו might instead have to be כסלו?

In any case, while I won't provide an attempted translation in case of inaccuracy, I believe the name of the person buried is Solomon, and that he died on the 16th of Kislev. Based on the list of people buried at the site per Find a Grave, as well as the dates for Kislev, I believe the monument is for Solomon Rosenthal, who was born 1816 and passed on December 12, 1878 (16 Kislev, 5639). Although again, this should be taken with a grain of salt. GalacticShoe (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That would be this one. Looks like the same style of stone, with an English transcription on this side of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is indeed likely to be the same monument. Based on the ground I presume it would be on the opposite side of the Hebrew inscription (the monstone on the ground to the right of the monument in the picture above would likely show up in the Find a Grave photo if the English inscription were on the side to the left of the Hebrew inscription.) GalacticShoe (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There is only one monument of that size, shape and coloration in that small cemetery. Most of the graves are horizontal without upright headstones. There is one darker upright monument. So, I think it is likely that it has an English side and a Hebrew side. The cemetery is fenced off and so I was taking my photos from a distance. Thanks for all the insights. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The top line, פ נ‎, is an abbreviation of פֹּה נִקְבַּר‎ (po nikbar), meaning "Here is buried", and the bottom line, ת נ צ ב ה‎, is an abbreviation of תְּהִי נִשְׁמָתוֹ צְרוּרָה בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים‎ (tehei nishmato tserurah bitsror hachayim), meaning "May his soul be bundled in the bundle of life".  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification, Lambiam. Would you (or anyone else) happen to know תרלט לפק is interpreted as 5,639? My understanding is that לפק is לפ״ק, indicating the omission of the thousands digit, but I'm not sure how one obtains 639 from תרלט. GalacticShoe (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

See Hebrew numerals. The tav is 400, resh is 200, lamed is 30, tet is 9. The hundreds place uses two letters because the Hebrew alphabet ends at 400. —Amble (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is a Chabad explanation of the abbreviation at the bottom. Their translation is "May his/her soul be bound up in the bond of life." Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The KJV has "bound in the bundle of life". The root of the Hebrew adjective צרור‎ is the same as that of the noun, the two differing only in the niqqud. The basic sense of the root is that of tightness, which IMO is conveyed better by bundle than by bond.  ​‑‑Lambiam 02:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

July 20

Singaporean video translation

Can anyone translate this Singaporean Hokkien(?) video for me? It's a 2012 video from SPH Media's RazorTV that discusses the production of Ah Boys to Men. Director Jack Neo here speaks what seems to be Hokkien. I'd like the entire video transcript in English.

I will be using this AV media to cite noncontroversial statements on production, as RazorTV is made for "low showbiz" news. These claims are Casting began in March 2012 (in English at 2:30) and Neo initially wanted to include regulars like Shawn Lee and Joshua Ang, but decided otherwise to give the audience a completely new feel. RFNirmala (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)