Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< September 9 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 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.


Contents

[edit] September 10

[edit] Sense of Vertigo

I used to think that the sensation one gets when looking over a cliff is that of "vertigo" but after reading the word's definition it doesn't seem to be the case. Is there a word for the sensation you get when looking over a precipous? Not a dizzying or moving sensation but rather, I am embarassed to say, something felt in the genitals. Again is there a name for this? 207.69.139.146 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An (adrenaline) rush perhaps? FiggyBee 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Mild fear of heights, with a resulting fight or flight reaction normal for males?[1]  --Lambiam 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that fear of heights is a rather inappropriate word. Fear of depths makes more sense. In Mexico I once did a boat trip through a flooded ravine flanked by 1 km (!) high sheer vertical cliffs. Looking up, my stomach turned. That was fear (well, not exactly fear) of heights. Is there a word for that? DirkvdM 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French corpus: verb frequency

Where can I find a huge list of French verbs sorted by frenquency of use in written or spoken French? I want to teach the most common French verbs, irregular or not, before I get to more obscure ones like gésir.--Sonjaaa 02:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is this page, which uses three 19th century works of literature. Maybe not very scientific, or recent, but it's a start. Adam Bishop 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary: French frequency lists/1-2000, you can also get the frequencies through 10,000: Frequency_lists#French_words, which uses [2] as a source. 68.231.151.161 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears' or Britney Spears's

There is currently a confusion on Britney Spears article talk page. So which one is correct? Is it:

  • Britney Spears'

or is it

  • Britney Spears's

Thanks for helping out. Oidia (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If her surname is "Spears", I understand the correct possessive is "Spears's". Bielle 03:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It depends on who you ask, really. Both practices appear in copy-edited text very frequently. Some vehemently recommend the bare apostrophe, some insist on 's in all cases, and others don't feel strongly either way. Strad 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending in s, z, or x - but sometimes I see that one pushed quite a bit, too. By what it says there, it would come down to which one sounds better - but I understand that this is only a suggestion and there are no solid rules on which one to use. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A rule I use in my own extra-Wikipedia writing is that if I pronounce the possessive like Spearses, then I write Spears's, but if I pronounce it like Spears, then I write Spears'. If there's only one sibilant sound at the tail of the name, there's usually no difficulty in adding another (eg. Brahms's music; Spears's recordings). But I'd never say Jesuses parables, so I'd never write "Jesus's parables", preferring "Jesus' parables". Always be consistent in the same document. -- JackofOz 04:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
...and I would absolutely say and write it as "Jesus's parables."  :-) --Reuben 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There you go then. Whichever sounds better to the writer. -- JackofOz 06:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style says to go with "Spears's," and that the s should be left off only in cases where it's historically been the most common possessive, like "Jesus'". So, Spears's it is, on Wikipedia at least. -Elmer Clark 06:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style, in this case, reflects The Elements of Style, which many writers consider authoritative. Chapter 1, page 1 of Elements of Style says "Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write, Charles's friend, Burns's poems, the witch's malice. Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names ending in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake or for righteousness' sake". --JayHenry 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this out. Oidia (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And I thought Britney was famous enough to be known by just her first name! But that is perhaps just me speaking as one of Britney's peers. Cyta 14:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Britney who? —Angr 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anybody know any Korean?

I know this isn't always the sort of place to make this sort of inquiry, but here it is: I recently nominated Ban Ki-moon for Featured Article status. I don't speak Korean, so I'm wondering if there are perhaps important details, widely available in Korean, but not really available yet in English. If somebody speaks Korean and knows how to search Korean reliable sources, any input would be greatly appreciated. The sources in the article are quite good, so it's my sincere hope that nothing important is missing, but if somebody could double check it would be greatly appreciated. --JayHenry 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can suggest is look here, find the articles you need with some kind of language translator and look through the sources on that page. ::Manors:: 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish (?) translation

What does the following sentence mean? I think it's Spanish.
Est Pablo el Havana comesta gringo.
Babel fish didn't help.Zain Ebrahim 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what Babelfish did: "Est Pablo the foreign comesta Havana". Not helpful, I think. Bielle 15:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on my limited knowledge of Spanish, the sentence contains a few Spanish words, but it is gibberish in Spanish. Marco polo 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't look particularly meaningful. "Est" isn't a Spanish word, though "este" can mean both "this" and "east". And "hav/bana", meaning harbor, is feminine, so it would be "la Havana", not "el Havana". And "comesta" doesn't mean anything. Gringo is the Latin American slang term for Americans. It could be something colloquial, but otherwise, it's just gibberish, as Marco polo says. Corvus cornix 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary.com translator says it "Est Pablo the foreign Havana comesta." & FreeTranslation.com says "Est Pablo the Havana comesta foreign". Seems as though translators can't even get the same order. ::Manors:: 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comesta could be a fast way of saying "Cómo está" or Italian "Come sta" (I don't know Italian, though, so I'm not sure about that). Other than that, I agree with everyone else that it's gibberish.--El aprendelenguas 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It could also be some odd form of comer, to eat. Corvus cornix 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help with semantics

I am soliciting any suggestions, advice, input, opinions, and feedback regarding this semantic issue. Thanks for your help. I am doing a lot of editing / writing / rewriting of the Academy Awards articles in Wikipedia. I am often faced with the competing goals of attempting to: (1)"cram in" all of the appropriate and correct information; (2) have it sound pleasing, non-repetitive, and easy to read / digest; (3) not sound too formal, awkward, stiff, or contrived; and (4) not sound too informal, flip, demeaning, or deprecating. In essence, I am trying to communicate something like this:

  • "The Academy Award for Best Actor is an award which is awarded by AMPAS."

Of course, the word "award" is used three times in such a brief sentence and, thus, undesirable. But ... the first mention of "award" is the actual title of the award and thus not particularly negotiable. Regarding the second mention of "award" -- it is, in fact, an award. Alternative terms sound either too stuffy, formal, and contrived (e.g., honor, designation, title, accolade) ... or, too informal, inconsequential, and trivial (e.g., prize, trophy, statue). Regarding the third mention of "award" -- is is, in fact, awarded. Other terms sound either too formal (e.g., bestowed) or too informal (e.g., given, distributed, presented). I mean, it's not "bestowed" like the winner is being beknighted or crowned King... but neither is it simply given / distributed / handed out like ketchup packets at McDonald's. So, basically, I am trying to communicate that the name of the award is an award that is being awarded ... with the appropriate amount of dignity / decorum for the affair ... and not too much or too little of the pomp and circumstance. A rather tall order, but doable, I am sure. Any input? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

IMO, you don't need the second award - you have already established that it is an award by giving its name. Presented does not, to me, sound excessively informal. "The Academy Award for Best Actor is presented by the AMPAS..." sounds fine to me. DuncanHill 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the input. But ... to me, your proposed sentence seems very "incomplete" and lacking something essential, no? In a Wikipedia article, the very first sentence (in some sense) should be somewhat like a definition. That is, it should be an introduction (i.e., a definition) to what the encyclopedia article further details. To me, the very first sentence of this Wikipedia article should answer the following question. Question: What is the Academy Award for Best Actor? Answer: The Academy Award for Best Actor is a __________ which is presented by the AMPAS." I think that that is what I am looking for. As devil's advocate, let's say that we begin the article with your proposed sentence: "The Academy Award for Best Actor is presented by the AMPAS." To me, that answers the question: Who presents this Award? It doesn't (satisfactorily) answer the question: What indeed is this Award? (that is, what indeed does the phrase "Academy Award for Best Actor" even mean?) It is my belief that this article should begin, essentially, as: "The Academy Award for Best Actor is a ....... noun ....... which is ....... verb ....... -ed by the AMPAS." That is what I am attempting to state eloquently and articulately. If the article were to start: "The Academy Award for Best Actor is presented by the AMPAS." -- that seems very incomplete and missing something. The reader is left unfulfilled, so to speak. Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
If the award was called The lump of metal for being fab, then yes, more explanation would be needed, but I think that something which is called "The Academy Award for Best Actor" actually manages to explain itself in its own name. It tells us it is an award, it tells us it is for the best actor, the only bit which needs explaining is the "Academy", which is done by wikilinking the AMPAS. I tend to like sentences short and to the point. This may be a cultural difference as I have noticed that American writers use what (to me) seem to be overlong constructions. DuncanHill 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I do indeed see your point. Nonetheless, can anyone offer a decent noun that would appropriately fill in this blank: "The Academy Award for Best Actor is a __________ which is presented by the AMPAS." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
I agree that "The Academy Award for Best Actor is presented by the AMPAS..." is the best solution, as English prose and as Wikipedia introduction. Tesseran 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More help with semantics

This is (somewhat) related to my request immediately above. That is, I am attempting to improve / edit / write / rewrite many of Wikipedia's Academy Awards articles. I don't want to get too technical, scientific, or "official" ... but, rather, I want to address the mass audience of Wikipedia readers (i.e., laypersons). What, if any, are the nuances of distinction between the following four terms: (1) film, (2) motion picture, (3) movie, and (4) picture ... ? Generally speaking, I believe that I know the scientific / technical distinctions between these jargon words -- but, perhaps, I don't ...? In essence, (1) film is the physical medium upon which the process is recorded; (2) motion picture is a moving picture; (3) a "movie" is a colloquial expression similar to a "talkie" (i.e., it moves ... it talks); and (4) a picture is an image (i.e., similar to a photograph). (I think.) But -- for purposes of general conversation with laypersons (and readers of Wikipedia articles) -- are these four terms essentially synonyms and interchangeable ... or not really? In every day "speak" ... do the following four statements essentially mean the same exact thing ... or, not quite ... ?

  • Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Academy Award for his role performance in the film Capote.
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Academy Award for his role performance in the motion picture Capote.
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Academy Award for his role performance in the movie Capote.
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Academy Award for his role performance in the picture Capote.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Good question - and one that runs into the problem of differing national varieties of English. In Britain, people watch films. In America they watch movies. Motion pictures are, IMO, only talked about by the AMPAS. Pictures are things one hangs on the wall or keeps in a wallet. Maybe you could recast the sentence to avoid the problem word altogether? "Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Academy Award for his rôle in "Capote"". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I'd incline to say he won the award for his performance, not the rôle. DuncanHill 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I do see what you are saying ... but that does not really solve the essence of the problem at hand. In other words, the four different Capote sentences above were merely hypothetical and illustrative examples. I am not particularly attempting to communicate the fact that Hoffman won an award for his work. I guess -- in a generic sense -- I am seeking to find the most "appropriate" term to describe that Hollywood product titled Capote. If that makes sense. Would "normal" (lay people, not in the industry per se) call it a film, a motion picture, a movie, or a picture? What, if any, are the subtle distinctions that we "normal" (non-industry) people differentiate with these four terms? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
I think normal layfolk in the UK would call it a film, in the US a movie (or maybe a film - per MarcoPolo below). I think very few people would call it a motion picture or a picture (and those that did would probably be "industry" people). DuncanHill 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] These statements, I believe, all have the same "meaning", but each has a different tone. You point out that "film" is the medium on which cinematic productions are recorded. However, another, widely understood meaning of this word is "cinematic work". In fact, all of these terms (film, motion picture, movie, picture) can mean "cinematic work", and that is clearly what they mean in these sentences. The term "motion picture", to my ears, sounds a bit archaic. Hardly anyone uses that term any more. Similarly, "picture" (in this case an abbreviation of "motion picture"), while more casual than "motion picture", sounds old-fashioned. In general, I think that Wikipedia articles should use the more current terms "movie" or "film". The main difference between these two, to American ears, is that "film" has a higher tone. The word "film" tends to be used by more educated writers and speakers, while the word "movie" is probably more common and popular, at least in speech. I think that an article might vary between these two terms to avoid monotony, but an editor should be aware of the difference in tone. Marco polo 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Duncan that Hoffman would have won an award for his performance, not his role. Marco polo 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Marco Polo - thanks for your reply. It got me thinking, however. And I think I might be coming to the exact opposite conclusion as you do. But, I am not yet quite sure. In the "olden days," they (Hollywood producers) would tell a specific story (let's just say, Gone With the Wind) ... and they would place that story onto a physical medium called film ... and we in the audience would watch that physical film which tells that specific story of Gone With the Wind. So, the words "film" and "Gone With the Wind" would become interchangeable. That is, one might say "I went to the theatre to see the physical film of that story titled Gone With the Wind." Then, through concision, one might simply say "I saw the film Gone With the Wind." Now, if we were to fast forward to today in 2007: We now watch DVD's which, as far as I know, has absolutely nothing to do with the physical medium of film. (Correct?) So, we are really watching a digital computer image (and not an actual physical film) of the Gone With the Wind story. (Am I right?) So, at this point, the word "film" -- if anything -- should be obsolete and archaic. We are still watching the movie (the story), but we are watching it on DVD (not film). I guess my point is that, if any word should be thrown out the window so to speak (i.e., be less acceptable or appropriate), it would be the word "film" (and not the word "movie"), due to technology advances. I dunno. I am getting very confused at this point. To throw another monkey wrench into this: I assume that they (Hollywood producers) actually do indeed film (the verb) the story on physical film (the noun) and then mass produce that physical film into the physical medium of DVD. I think. Who knows? Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Some films/movies/flicks are now being recorded on digital media, so no, there is not always a celluloid base. Some people still talk of dialing a telephone, when in fact they are pressing buttons which create tones. I think you are letting yourself get bogged down in these details. You just should make the best effort you can to communicate the information clearly; if somebody feels it can be improved, then, this being Wikipedia, those changes will be made. --LarryMac | Talk 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Joseph, when I said that "film" is a more modern way of referring to a cinematic work than "moving picture", I was not suggesting that celluloid film as a medium is the most recent technology. The word "film" has several meanings. One is "celluloid film". Another is "cinematic work", whether it appears on DVD or some other medium. The question is not whether "film" should be used to refer to a cinematic work that was never recorded on celluloid. People do refer to cinematic works, regardless of medium, as films. My point was that this is a more contemporary usage than "moving picture". Marco polo 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you added another question, about whether the works recorded on DVD are first "filmed" on celluloid. I think that the answer is that some are, and some aren't. I think that most works released in big-screen cinemas are still filmed on celluloid, whether or not they are later released on DVD. (Though I think that there have been some recent exceptions where films were first shot with digital videocameras and then transferred to celluloid.) However, I think that most, if not all, productions for television are now shot (not "filmed") with videocameras and never recorded on celluloid. Marco polo 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Marco Polo - thanks again for the input. Yes, I understood your original intentions. I am simply stating that the thread of this discussion has made me realize that the word "film" will probably soon be obsolete. Yes, in the year 3000, we can still call it a "film" -- but, that will only be due to historical reasons (habit) that will having nothing to do with actual celluloid film. Just as another poster pointed out: we talk about "dialing a telephone number" only because that phrase became imbedded in our brain through history. In 2007, we don't actually "dial phone numbers" ... but we all know and accept what that phrase means. So, I am saying that referring to movies as "films" in the year 3000 is probably analagous to the rotary telephone dialing method. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
There are plenty more of these vestigial kinds of phrases, most of which we're not even aware of using. For example, I'll bet you say "turn on the light", don't you? But who realizes that this is because early light switches were rotary, not the almost universal toggles in use today? (By the way, is there a linguistic term for such usages?) +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to add my 2 cents worth: "film" and "movie" are pretty much widely understood and interchangeable, although in light of the comments above distinguishing UK and US usage, perhaps "film" would be be better, "movie" being more of an Americanism. I agree that "motion pictures" has whiskers and would need a good shave before being used. Regarding "picture", that's interesting: it's still in use, but mainly in a very jargon-y way, by the likes of Variety (sometimes abbreviated "pic"), so I'd avoid that one as well. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
On a related topic, the expressions "I'm going to the movies", and "I'm going to the pictures" are common in Australia. I've heard "I'm going to the cinema", but less often. I've never heard anyone say "I"m going to the films". -- JackofOz 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow Up

Thanks for all of the input. I see the points being made here (above). Thanks. Now, if I may pick your collective brains as a follow up. Let us abandon our concern for laypersons and those not in the industry. Rather, let us indeed focus on professionals in the actual industry. What do they mean when they make the linguistic distinctions: movie / film / motion picture / picture / etc.? Also ... as a side question: the general consensus (above) is that "motion picture" is an antiquated and/or dated expression. Pardon my ignorance but ... isn't the AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) the very organization that is at the cutting edge of these issues? Why would they embrace an antiquated and out-of-date term ... much less retain it in the title of their professional organization? I am curious. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Organizations, societies, and other groups like these are probably among the most likely places to find archaic terms, because of the inertia involved in changing the name of a society. Also, whatever prestige is associated with an organization might be lost, at least partially, if the name were changed (to what degree is the new group is the "same organization"?). Tesseran 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tesseran; actually I laughed at the suggestion that AMPAS is on the cutting edge of these issues. To answer your question, skimming the official rules for the 80th Academy Awards it looks like AMPAS does not use the word "movie" but the words "film", "picture", and "motion picture" are frequently used synonymously. For example, look at Rule Two. Paragraph 2 uses the term "motion picture", and that term is also used in other paragraphs such as paragraph 8, while paragraph 7 uses the term "picture", and paragraphs 3 and 4 use the term "film". It is clear that these three terms are all used within this one Rule to mean "cinematic work", with no distinction in meaning. --Mathew5000 19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Also I think it is fair to say that within the filmmaking industry, particularly Hollywood, the term "picture" is still current -- especially to describe movies in development. The industry magazine Variety uses the word "picture" with some frequency and is famous for using the word "pic" (plural "pix") in headlines to refer to a cinematic work. You might say that the terms "movie", "film", and "picture" can all mean "cinematic work" but the term "movie" emphasizes the work's entertainment value, "film" emphasizes its artistic value, and "picture" emphasizes its business value. --Mathew5000 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] straight As or straight A's?

How do you pluralize the letter A?--Sonjaaa 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You use an apostrophe if not using an apostrophe would be confusing. Whether you should always use an apostrophe for pluralising single letters, or whether it should be limited to ambiguous cases, is a matter of debate - see English plural#Plurals of symbols and initialisms.
As with many contentious grammatical structures, it may be best to rewrite and avoid the issue altogether; "she is a straight-A student" instead of "she gets straight A's". FiggyBee 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) See Apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals. Because it is capital A, no apostrophe is necessary - it should be As. You will probably see different writers with different styles. The problem with 's as a plural marker in these special cases is that it encourages the "Greengrocers' apostrophe": apple's and pear's, for example. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I bet that you thought this would be an easy and clear-cut question and answer. Not so. Be aware, different manuals of style will give you different answers. But -- this is what I was taught and what I learned on this issue. First of all, if you are using a word as the word itself (or a letter as the letter itself), it should be in italics. So, you would type "dog" when referring to the actual animal, but you would type "dog" (in italics) when referring to the actual English word for that animal. Same thing with the letter "A". When you want to designate the alphabetic letter, you would italicize it: A. Now, the rule is, when you want to create a plural, you simply add the letter "s" at the end. So, you will get "As". However, when there is an ambiguity, you would need to include an apostrophe to clear up the ambiguity. Here, of course, the ambiguity is As versus As. That is, the first "As" means having many (plural) of the alphabetic letter "A" ... and the second "As" means the word "as" (like in, "quiet as a mouse"). So, the answer to your question is: A's. If it were a non-ambiguous letter or symbol, you would not need the apostrophe. For example:
  • (Sentence 1) John received seven A's on his report card for this semester. (As is ambiguous and can refer to the English word "as".)
BUT
  • (Sentence 2) Bill received seven Bs on his report card for this semester. (Bs is not ambiguous.)
OR
  • (Sentence 3) My telephone number contains more 8s in it than my zip code does. (8s is not ambiguous.)
Hope this helps. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
You're overcomplicating this. It's pretty simple; "straight A's" is yet another example of a "greengrocer's apostrophe", which is incorrect. It's a very common English error, so named from an abundance of examples found in grocery stores ("BANANA'S, $2 A BUNCH", "FRESH ORANGE'S"), or other retail establishments ("NEW CD'S"). The simple rule is that if it's not a possessive (in other words, you're not saying that something belongs to "A"), then don't use an apostrophe. So you'd have "George got straight As" (as opposed to "George, who is the A's star pitcher, got straight As"). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect. If I am overcomplicating this, then you are oversimplifying this. I agree with all that you have said. Except that a case of ambiguity (multiple "As" on a student report card versus the English word "As") requires an apostrophe, and a case of non-ambiguity does not. Furthermore, ... a word identified as a word ... a letter identified as a letter ... a number identified as a number ... a symbol identified as a symbol ... etc ... all require italics. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Sorry, but that's not true. Manuals of style like Chicago and MLA say that you use an apostrophe to pluralise single letters (indeed, I have MLA open in front of me, and it uses "three A's" as an example). It's not an error and it's not a "simple rule". I would also disagree with Joseph's reasoning of "A's" and "Bs"; whether you want to use an apostrophe or not, you should at least be consistent. FiggyBee 17:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify my previous reply. In Sentence 1 (above), you must use an apostrophe to clear the ambiguity. You don't have an option. In Sentences 2 or 3 (above), you can use an apostrophe or not. Either is correct. You do have an option. That is, an apostrophe is not required, but it is acceptable. And, yes, consistency is critical. Thus, if I were typing Sentence 2 or Sentence 3 (the non-ambiguous ones) all by itself ... or Sentence 2 in conjunction with Sentence 3 ..., then I could do so either with or without an apostrophe. My choice. However, if I were typing Sentence 2 or Sentence 3 (or both) in some context alongside Sentence 1, I would affirmatively insert the apostrophe for consistency. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Okay. Although, just to make matters a bit more complicated ;), you generally don't these days use an apostrophe for numbers or non-alphabetical symbols. So it would be A's, B's, and 8s. FiggyBee 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Being consistent is definitely the most important. Pick a style and stick with it! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[after edit conflict]
Not correct: I'm looking at my manual of style (Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations) which says this:
Capital letters. Form the plurals of most single and multiple capital letters used as nouns by adding s alone:
The three Rs are taught at the two YMCAs.
And so far as Spadero's "A's" goes, there's no ambiguity; the capitalized letter in the middle of the sentence clues readers that it is not the word "as". But only apostrophizing possessives or contractions really is a pretty hard and fast rule in English. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hold your horses! Who said that the "As" must come in the middle of the sentence and, therefore, preclude ambiguity? The expression "As" can appear anywhere within a sentence -- beginning, middle, or end. The original poster did not specify ...he/she simply asked for the plural of "A". So, clearly, a sentence can be constructed that states something along the lines of:
  • As on your report card will look better than Fs when you are applying to a good college.
My point: the word "As" (regardless of sentence placement) is ambiguous as between multiple "A" letters / characters or the English word "as". The ambiguity needs clarification via apostrophe use. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Ah, well, I didn't say all manuals of style. MLA definitely recommends the apostrophe. FiggyBee 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is true; do you have an online reference by any chance? English usage isn't that variable. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Not that I can find. I'm sure your library will have multiple copies of the MLA handbook if you doubt my word. BTW, I notice your Turabian quote is only about "most [..] capital letters", does that mean she recommends using an apostrophe to form plurals in at least some cases? FiggyBee 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, shows what trouble one can get into when one misses something when reading. She (Turabian) goes on to say:
Small letters. Form the plurals of all small lettes, of capital letters with periods, and of capital letters that would be confusing if s alone were added, by adding an apostrophe and s:
All the examples were labeled by letter: the a's were tested first, the b's second, and so on.
The B.A.'s and B.S.'s conferred were almost ten times the number of M.A.'s and Ph.D's.
The A's, I's and S's in the directory were checked by one group.
Which seems to contradict what I said, so I guess I was wrong about that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If George got straight As, I would be thinking he used to be gay before, and now he's chasing women vigorously, so we make that a capital A for emphasis. He's straight AS now. I would add the apostrophe only when needed, and to hell with consistency. I would be consistent with my own advice. 203.221.127.147 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow Up

This (above) conversation got me thinking. How do people think that the following sentence should be typed in order for it to be grammatically correct? Conceptually, I want to communicate that the letter "s" appears with a frequency of 4 times in the state name for Mississippi. How would you do that exactly? Thanks.

  • The word Mississippi contains four ss.

This (above) is what I came up with, but I am not 100% sold. Note: the state name is italicized; the quantity of four is spelled out with words and not with numerals; the final word of my proposed sentence contains the letter "s" twice -- the first "s" is in italics, the second "s" is not. Any thoughts? Thanks. Please elaborate on spelling, grammar, punctuation, italics, etc. A complete response. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Well, according to Turabian (and contrary to what I said earlier), it should be "... contains four s's". (Italicizing the letter "s" isn't necessary here, by the way.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I Like 2 Be Anonymous -- Two questions for you: (1) Why are you saying no italics? and (2) How would you do my original question if it were in capital letters? That is, how would you do this:
  • John wrote the word MISSISSIPPI on the chalk board. You will notice that John's word, MISSISSIPPI, contains four Ss.
Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
"The letter s occurs four times in the word Mississippi". If a sentence can't be made to "look right", then recast it. DuncanHill 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Duncan Hill -- I am certainly well aware that one can make one's life easier and simply choose to reword a sentence (as you suggested). But, that does not answer my question. In fact, it only serves to avoid the substantive question. My question is ... if a writer wanted to word the sentence exactly as above, what is the correct way to do so? Just because a sentence doesn't look right, does not in fact mean that it is not right. Right? (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Fair point - but if it don't look right - it ain't good prose.DuncanHill 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree. I mean, this question is largely academic. In "real life", I am sure that I would reword the statement much as you suggested. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 7.63: Letters as letters. Individual letters and combinations of letters of the Latin alphabet are usually italicized.
  • the letter q
Roman type, however, is traditionally used in two common expressions.
  • Mind your p's and q's!
  • dotting the i's and crossing the t's
Roman type is always used for phonetic symbols
Ibid, 7.65: Plurals of letters. To avoid confusion, the plural of single lowercase letters is formed by adding an apostrophe before the s. The s is roman even when the letter is italic. Capital letters do not normally require an apostrophe in the plural.
  • There really are two x's in Foxx.
  • the three Rs —Wayward Talk 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to agree entirely with Turabian. (In fact, isn't Turabian the very essence of "Chicago style"?) +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So, which is it?

  • John wrote the word MISSISSIPPI on the chalk board. You will notice that John's word, MISSISSIPPI, contains four S's.

OR

  • John wrote the word MISSISSIPPI on the chalk board. You will notice that John's word, MISSISSIPPI, contains four Ss.

The responses above are contradictory. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

If I were Sonjaaa, I would be hopelessly confused by now. My gleaning of the above is that the experts disagree about this. The only consistent advice we've given is to pick a style and use it consistently. I agree with that. Fwiw, my understanding of the most widespread general current practice is to avoid apostrophes with plurals unless it really, truly is ambiguous without the apostrophe and it really, truly can't be better expressed any other way. Such cases are very rare. -- JackofOz 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said Jack, the world of grammatical style is an evershifting quicksand into which those with feet of clay will rapidly sink. I think Duncan's line works best - "if it don't look right, it ain't good prose". In English grammar the rules are constantly broken and thank god for that it adds to the interest. If a sentence has ambiguity then rewrite it (as Duncan said), but banging on about spurious and contradictory 'styles' will result in ever-decreasing returns. Richard Avery 09:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European English?

There are certain words that I repeatly find in text written in English by continental Europeans, that I don't think Americans or British use much at all. Two examples are 'valorize' and 'derogation'. First, am I wrong that these words are rarely used, even in academic writing, by native English speakers? If so, any explantion for the popularity of these words among Europeans? Does English lack more common words for the concepts they are trying to express? ike9898 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not widely used by American English speakers and writers, but I can't vouch for their UK, etc., counterparts. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ike, I am a native speaker of English from the United States. I have a doctorate and am a professional editor. Perhaps I should be embarrassed, but I do not know the meaning of 'valorize' or 'derogation'. I can guess at the meaning of 'valorize' without looking at a dictionary, but I don't have a clue about 'derogation'. I have never heard either word used in the United States. Marco polo 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(third attempt at posting this!) They're not widely used in the UK either, but I suspect that the concepts or actions they represent are not widely discussed here.DuncanHill 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Valorize or valorise is to fix the price or value of something. Derogation is most usually used to describe the action of dis-applying a portion of a law or treaty. DuncanHill 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the reason that these terms are not used in the United States is that these processes generally do not occur in the United States. Richard Nixon imposed price controls as an inflation-fighting measure in the early 1970s, but this was never referred to as "valorizing". I think we would say "impose price controls" or "set prices". As for "derogation", we might call it a "partial repeal". Marco polo 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In the use the questioner probably noticed, the verbs to valorize and to derogate are antonyms, meaning: to assert/increase or deny/decrease the validity/value of. I suspect that they entered the English discourse from the French post-structuralist idiom of valorisation and dérogation. Some EU bureaucrats also love these words, as no-one really knows what they mean.  --Lambiam 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think Ihave seen these mostly in bureaucatratic-type documents. ike9898 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I take them to mean exactly what Lambiam says: to valorize/derogate = to place a high/low value upon. Wareh 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Derogation is used fairly commonly in American English legal writing, as in the phrase, "in derogation of his rights." I just conducted a Lexis search of '"derogation" for New York State court cases and got 2448 results.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Much of the European English you have in mind comes from documents written in French and then translated into English too literally, or even with mistaken reliance on a word which looks the same in both languages. At the borderline end, the French word compétances nearly always comes out in translation as competences. At the worst end, the French destitution (removal from holding office) is sometimes translated into English as destitution (extreme poverty). Xn4 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Are these calques? -- JackofOz 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, they are just gallicism.--K.C. Tang 02:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but this stretches the meaning of calque in a way that perhaps illustrates itself; was that your point? A common name for such usages is false friends (faux amis). —Tamfang 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Derogation is reasonably common in legal language, valorize I suspect is not exactly English but is a term coined for an EU tax/legal concept without an exact (indigenous) English equivalent. Peter Grey 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Aren't we missing the easy call here? "Derogation" is the noun of which "derogatory" is the adjective, and we all know what "derogatory" means: "Wikipedia articles must adhere to NPOV and should not be derogatory unless such language is authoritatively sourced". In other words, we don't want any unverified derogation, right? :-) As Marco polo says, one doesn't often hear or see "derogation" outside of the legal field, but the paucity of the US vocabulary is another issue. Unimaginative Username 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And, while we're at gallicisms...

...another English-French false friend which gives me hard time is "eventually"/"éventuellement". In my mother tongue, it's a gallicism as well and means the same as in French: see wikt:éventuellement. The subtlety is, however, missing in the possible English translations: éventuellement has connotations of both "later" and "possibly", which doesn't seem able to be carried out by a single English word. Wikt:éventuel suggests a "should an X occur" as a plausible rephrasing; but I'm still missing a single-word adverb or adjective. Is there one? Duja► 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a single adverb or adjective to offer either. One way of translating the adverbial éventuellement is using the auxiliary verb "might". "Are you going to visit your mother on Sunday?" - "Éventuellement" ("I might") ---Sluzzelin talk 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is mostly an adjective which is problematic: "possible" is close, but probably too emphatic and/or strong; doesn't seem natural. Too bad that "mighty" does not derive from "might" :-). Duja► 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
heh Incidentally, German borrowed this gallicism too ("eventuell", both adjective and adverb). But you often hear it used entirely as a synonym of "possible / possibly", not just for events that might occur in the future (where it's uncertain whether they will happen at all or not), but even for events that might have already occurred in the past (unknown to us, but objectively and with the right information it is certain whether they happened or not). Perhaps this usage isn't strictly correct, but you do hear it. Example: "Does she know?" - "Not sure, eventuell (possibly) he hasn't told her yet." In these cases, "possibly" might possibly be the most correct translation. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard (though this may be an urban legend) that when the Algerians were negotiating the release of the American hostages in Iran back in 1980/81, at one point they told the American government that the hostages would eventually be released. The Americans were obviously very pleased until it turned out that it was simply a mistranslation of éventuellement. —Angr 19:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Idiotism" is an obsolete English word for an idiom, but it is still used in French with that meaning. A few interpreters and translators have come to grief when they've assumed it meant "idiocy" in English. -- JackofOz 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
May I add "actuellement" (at the moment, currently) to the list? SaundersW 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)