Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/LWP:RD/L

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.

November 26

English semivowels

Does English have any words which have two semivowels on both sides of a vowel, such as a made-up words wawe, which would be pronounced [weɪw] and yaye, which would be pronounced [jeɪ̯j]? --40bus (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; the second W doesn't contribute a semivowel sound. "Wawa" works, but it's a proper name (a place name, a business name, etc.), not really an English word. --~2025-36752-20 (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Wowee! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the second ⟨w⟩ in Wawa a plain /w/, like it is in stowaway (/ˈstəʊəˌweɪ/)? I think it is the other way around: the first ⟨w⟩ in wow is not a semivowel. But dayowl (seen here) should work. So would windowowl, should these critters become common enough to warrant their receiving a univerbated moniker. ‑‑Lambiam 12:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, [w] is a semivowel. --Trovatore (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly yo-yo, unless that's considered bisyllabic. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're both non-syllabic vocoids, aka semivowels aka glides aka (subset of) approximants. English phonotactics prohibits them from occurring in coda except as the second components of diphthongs. Nardog (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it ironic that linguisticians often use terminology that is incomprehensible to the great unwashed, the mere users and principal creators of the language? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

No more so than that entomologists use big words for insects. runs away --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

November 27

The scripts used by people with the Ottoman nationality when writing Ottoman Turkish

I've a question: if an Ottoman Armenian Catholic wanted to wrote Turkish to a Turkish Muslim, then which script would he use? As Armenians (excl. Muslims) wrote Turkish using the Armenian script, and Muslims would no doubt used Arabo-Persian script. RekishiEJ (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the sender knew the recipient to be able to read texts written using the Armenian alphabet, both courtesy and common sense strongly suggest they would have used a script that was more readily accessible to the recipient, in this hypothetical case presumably the Ottoman Turkish version of the Arabo-Persian script. Even if (not unlikely) the recipient was illiterate, they should have had little difficulty in finding someone who could read it to them. And, if the sender had not mastered the Ottoman Turkish alphabet (also not unlikely), they would have dictated the letter to a kâtip (scribe). BTW, having "Ottoman nationality" sounds anachronistic; your hypothetical correspondents are more plausibly referred to as having been "Ottoman subjects". ‑‑Lambiam 11:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but due to the Tanzimat Ottoman nationality law was enacted in 1869, so my hypothetical correspondent isn't anachronistic.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some Ottoman Muslims were able to read Armeno-Turkish, see [1]. It shows that some Ottoman Muslims read Armeno-Turkish materials (e.g. Ahmet İhsan Tokgöz, a Muslim journalist and bureaucrat read Manzume-i Efkar (a newspaper using Armeno-Turkish) during his school days).--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC) altered a bit 13:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

"Asian" combining form?

Is there any attestation of a combining prefix for Asia (Asio-? Aso-?) on the pattern of Euro-, Afro-, Indo- or Sino-? The coining of terms like "Asia-Pacific" seems to suggest a consensus rejection of such a thing, and Google turns up basically nothing. Still, though, it seems odd that we lack one. ~2025-31275-58 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked as many Wikipedia articles as I could to find expected prefixes. I can't guarantee that in all of these cases the Asia in question is Asia, but I've tried my best to separate out the ones that aren't (e.g. Asiabadus named after Asiabad, and Asio which is named after the Latin asiō for horned owls.) Unsurprisingly, Asia- frequently shows up, prevalently in biological names:

1. Asiablatta kyotensis

2. Asiaceratops

3. Asiadapinae (and associated Asiadapis)

4. Asiadodis

5. Asiaephorus

6. Asiafroneta

7. Asiagomphus

8. Asiagone

9. Asiahesperornis

10. Asianellus

11. Asianopis

12. Asiapator

13. Asiapistosia

14. Asiarcha

15. Asiascape

16. Asiatella

17. Asiatherium

18. Asiatyrannus

19. Asiavorator

I'm seeing Asio- being apparently used predominantly in biological names, notably:

1. Asiodiplatys

2. Asiohahnia

3. Asiolasma

4. Asiomys

5. Asiophantes

6. Asiophlugis

7. Asiopsocidae (and associated Asiopsocus)

8. Asioryctitheria

9. Asiorrhina

10. Asiosarcophila

11. Asiosphegina

12. Asiotmethis

There are some instances which as far as I can tell use Asiato- specifically

1. Asiatoceratodus

2. Asiatolida

3. Asiatosaurus

4. Asiatosuchus

Also, one instance of Asian:

1. Asianthrips

The only instance of a non-biological word which isn't a proper noun (e.g. discounting Asiagate and Asialink) is Asiacentrism. I couldn't find any other prefixes (Asi-, Asie-, Asii-, or Asiu-.) GalacticShoe (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary also has Asiaphilia and Asiaphobia. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reluctance to using Asio- as a prefix may be dubbed Asiophoby. ‑‑Lambiam 15:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The criminal and terrorist element in Australia are Asiophobes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC) [reply]

November 30

Words created in 2000s

What are the words created in 2000s compared to 1990s? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neologisms by decade has lists of them. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 18:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V instead of U

Looking at the [Edinburgh Council logo], the cities name is stylised as Edinbvrgh (emphasis added). Is it because of the fact that the letter U came from the letter V, or because of the typeface? Maybe its the reason why Ravenpuff's signature on Wikipedia is stylised that way? Are there any logos presented that way? JuniperChill (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill: Likely a typographical affectation. See the last paragraph of U § History. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councilbrand, The design was inspired by text found on buildings around Edinburgh's Old Town. TSventon (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I didn't think the council would provide the reasons why their logo is stylised that way, but I'm guessing is because of the fact people have asked about why the logo is different to the spelling. JuniperChill (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of the reason, but logos are chosen to promote as well as identify their owners and Edinburgh Council probably want people to talk about the historic buildings in the Old Town. TSventon (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's all upper case. That's the classic style for upper case. There's a blurb or two in mixed case also, and it uses the normal "u". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a Celtic style to me. Classical writing didn't really have lower case. It evolved as a kind of cursive writing, until the different cases started to be used for different functions. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of old buildings with all-caps carvings, such as "PVBLIC LIBRARY". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of Asterix and Obelix in The Chieftain's Shield when they visit CIRCVMBENDIBVS WHEELS. ~2025-37690-73 (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Largely" historically correct, as a conscious distinction between U and V didn't happen until about 1500 years later. (I guess it should have been "VVHEELS", as well, but details...) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that other languages call the letter W 'double V' and in German, its pronounced [v]. And the letter W is not apart of the Italian alphabet. JuniperChill (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I somehow happen to stumble the (also Scottish) band Chvrches, pronounced as churches. Found the first use of V instead of U when not in all caps, as Wikipedia has titled it that way. JuniperChill (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The font is eclectic; while the

is uncial, the other letters (particularly the D and H) are not. The DINBVRGH part is more like a freestyle form of the classic Roman square capitals as found on Trajan's column; note the irregular heights and slants. While the majuscules of several typefaces have a Trajan-inspired freestyle form, I think these in the logo are not from any paricular identifiable typeface, but that the lettering was done by the logo's designer specifically for this one logo. ‑‑Lambiam 14:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Council's Brand guidelines lists only Meta, Arial and Verdana as typefaces to be used. The 'EDINBVRGH' lettering is only used for the city name, and only in specific configurations - no other text uses it. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 14:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes these things are done just to be cute, like when Monty Python talked about the "majestic møøse". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python can do no wrong. I miss the good old days. He-who-knows-everything (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I suddenly feel like treating myself to a helping of Häagen-Dazs while listening to Dååth? Perhaps better to have some Yogen Früz and 𝔪𝔬𝔱𝔬̈𝔯𝔥𝔢𝔞𝔡 instead. ‑‑Lambiam 13:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

English questions

Does English have any words where semivowel /ɪ/ is spelled ⟨y⟩?
Does English have any words which have two rhotics on both sides of first syllable vowel, as in made-up words rark and rirn? --40bus (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. "roared" and "reared", I guess. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also "rare", "rarify", etc.; "reredos", "reremouse", "rerun" (and doubtless other "re + r-" prefixed words); "rorqual", "rort" (australian slang); "rural"; and various words from or imitative of foreign languages such as "Rorschach" and "Ruritania". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "semivowel /ɪ/". Would whey (/hweɪ/) be an example? Deor (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Assuming /ɪ/ refers to a "short i", one example that comes to mind is Wytheville, Virginia, which is pronounced "WITH-vil". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Also some Greek-derived words like crypt, cryptic, krypton and kryptonite, I believe. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the wych elm. GalacticShoe (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And a lychgate. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I asked what 40bus meant by "semivowel /ɪ/". In all of these "short i" examples (the one that came to my mind was myth), the /ɪ/ isn't a semivowel; it's just a vowel. Deor (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I guess it's fairly common as part of a diphtong in words including pay, gray/ grey, fey, toy etc... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. "rare". Although, as spoken in my non-rhotic version of English, neither it nor any of the aforementioned "rark", "rirn", "roared", and "reared" may qualify for "two rhotics on both sides of the first syllable vowel". "raring", on the other hand, is good to go. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. rural? -- ~2025-38626-12 (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you breaking it down as "rur-al" or "ru-ral"? As the second way doesn't really seem to fit the question. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question as phrased was "both sides of the first syllable vowel"; not that both rhotics had to be part of the first syllable. So it fits either way.

Phonetically, it seems to me the center r is "doubled" - it is pronounced as both coda to first and onset to second. So if you needed to split the word between lines when typing on a typewriter, either way would probably be fine, but I think I would likely do "rur-al". ~2025-38703-06 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romanizations

Why English does not usually romanize Cyrillic letters representing postalveolar consonants with carons? --40bus (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a potential example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimir Severinovič Malevič. ‑‑Lambiam 12:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity, I guess. This has been answered earlier. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, "Weird Al" Yankovic has recently made a joke video where he complains about his surname being mispronounced with soft '-ch' not hard 'k', but then begins to wonder if he's been mispronouncing it, and that he's turned into a parody of himself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most English surnames originating from a different language have a spelling pronunciation that is (often markedly) different from the original pronunciation. The German surname Bernstein is pronounced in Germany as [ˈbɛʁnʃtaɪn] , but in English either as /ˈbɜːrnstaɪn/ (for example, for Leonard Bernstein) or as /ˈbɜːrnstiːn/ (as in Carl Bernstein), in either case without the ⟨sh⟩ sound of shy.

For a stronger example, the surname Chomsky, usually pronounced /ˈt͡ʃɒm.ski/, stems from a Slavic surname written in Russian as Хомский and pronounced /ˈxomskʲɪj/, starting with a voiceless velar fricative, the harsh ⟨ch⟩ sound of Scots loch. Another example is the originally Italian surname Schiavo, in the US usually pronounced /ˈʃaɪvoʊ/ with the ⟨sh⟩ sound and ⟨-igh⟩ sound of shy, but in Italian as /ˈskjaːvo/, with a hard /k/ and without a diphthong.

It is not particularly meaningful to label these as mispronunciations. ‑‑Lambiam 13:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is in the case of a person's surname, which that person has the right to define even if it differs in pronunciation and spelling from, e.g., the way their forebears pronounced it.

Yankovic's joke stems from many people writing parody songs imitative of his style, and posting them under his name, which they frequently misspell (and mispronounce) as 'Yankovich". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.1095} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, it is in the case of a person's surname, which that person has the right to define even if it differs in pronunciation and spelling from, e.g., the way their forebears pronounced it." In an extreme case of this, some of my maternal uncles pronounce their surname one way and others a different way. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered why Liefeld is pronounced as Lay-feld as it doesn't correspond to either German, Dutch or English orthography. I wonder whether it might have been a respelling of Dutch Lijfeld. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a Dutch ⟨ij⟩ become an ⟨i⟩ or ⟨y⟩, as in Riker/Ryker and Van Dyck/Van Dyke? ‑‑Lambiam 00:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name Lijfeld doesn't occur in the Netherlands. Neither does Lijveld, although names ending in -veld ("-field") are quite common. The names Lieveld (227 people) and Liefeld (17 people) do occur, but are very rare. The former is somewhat associated with the larger cities and apparently connected to Suriname, a former Dutch colony, still Dutch speaking. No connection with the village Lievelde is mentioned. Speculating here, but this could be a short version of Lelieveld ("Lily-field"). PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the surname "Lijfeld" died out in the Netherlands, but its use is historically attested.^[2] ‑‑Lambiam 16:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it pronounced that way? Rob Liefeld is pronounced just as you would expect from the spelling. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I believe I heard the pronunciation lay-feld before, in a documentary or so, but maybe it was dialectal or a mockery. Sorry, then. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you were wrong. It's quite possible that it is pronounced Lay-feld in other accents. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English generally doesn't use diacritics. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or if it does, few people know what to do with them! Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It "uses" them only in the sense that an English text can conceivably include some foreign words that have them. We normally ignore diacritics, because they are not part of the English language (and I defy anyone to prove me wrong on that point). A quoted text is usually given exactly as in the source language, but rendered in italics to indicate it's a guest, and not written in the English language. If the original has diacritics, they are shown in the quote. But sometimes we need a way of marking English words to help make sense of them. For example, it was once common to spell cooperate either as co-operate or coöperate, because otherwise it looks like cooper-ate. We usually spell the other word for CV as resumé, to distinguish it from the verb resume. If there were no such verb as resume, we'd treat resumé exactly as we treat cafe: devoid of dreaded diabolical diacritics. I've lost count of the times I've edited articles to convert début to plain debut. It is no longer a foreign word because it became a fully accepted part of English a long time ago, so no diacritics are required. Exactly like cafe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even with the existence of the verb resume, the accent is often not present on the noun. Here's two links giving advice on applying for jobs: https://wp.stolaf.edu/pipercenter/how-to-guides/resume-guide-2/how-do-you-deliver-your-resume-successfully/ and https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/resumes-cover-letters/how-to-email-a-resume --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Burnett in a skit where she's a dope applying for a job: "I expect you'll want to see my resume." Pronounced like the verb, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 40bus, please type this up, print it out, and attach it to the screens of every device you use to post here: it is not possible to determine "why" a language does or does not do things a certain way. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English has When? — Then!, Whence? – Thence!, Where? – There!, and Whither? – Thither!. So why does English not have Why? – Thy! ? ‑‑Lambiam 13:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot What? — That!. And what about Who? — Tho!? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wherefore?, Therefore!. Swedish has ty (for, because), though, which might possibly be related. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Keep reminding him, as it might get through someday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always the optimist! That's what I like so much about you. ;-) ‑‑Lambiam 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

Why do these similar words, used in the same context, require different forms of the following verb?

In a discussion I originally wrote "I see no reason to limit this to ...", but then changed that to "I see no reason or benefit to limiting this to ...". Which got me wondering, why do "I see no reason" and "I see no benefit" require different forms of the following verb? Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure,but your second version doesn't seem truly grammatical to me. Shouldn't it be "I see no reason for, nor benefit to, limiting...."? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's different varieties of English or something, but while your version does read to me as grammatical it also reads as significantly more formal than my second version (which doesn't seem ungrammatical to me, but that's probably not surprising regardless of whether it objectively is or not). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have written it as "I see no reason to or benefit in limiting this to . . .", but I am somewhat prolix.

English often has several different ways to correctly write and/or say (gasp – a split infinitive! :-)) the same thing, sometimes with subtle differences in implication, sometimes not. This flexibility enhances poetical expression and frustrates ESL students (which is not to say that other languages are not equally versatile, but I lack sufficient grasp of any of them to perceive it).

None of this, of course, addresses Thryduulf's question about the origins of the differences he adduces, which lie beyond my limited expertise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your version feels not grammatical to me. Usually, in a grammatical sentence of the form "... A or B ...", one can delete "or B" without making in ungrammatical. Applying the deletion to the bit "reason to or benefit in" produces "I see no reason to limiting this to ...". ‑‑Lambiam 05:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also the problem I had with Thryduulf's version. "I see no reason ... to limiting". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some English nouns can be used with an infinitive complement.^[3] These nouns constitute a closed class. The noun reason is in this class; the noun benefit is not. The article linked to suggests a characterization of this class, but (as for many things in human languages) it may be impossible to discern why some words are in this class and others not. ‑‑Lambiam 05:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 9