Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP: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.

May 4

"Could I have..."

I was taught that the polite way to ask for something in a grocery or take-away food shop was "Could I have such and such please." But the indolent youth of today seem to insist on saying "Could I get such and such please", which to me is an abomination and smacks of uncouth Americanisation. Or am I being too harsh? Are there regional differences, as I live in one of the better parts of England! 2A00:23C7:533:3C01:190F:C79:C9D2:D057 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me if a customer says "can I get" and the employee brings it to them, they can walk out witĥ it without paying.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly American, and uncouth. DuncanHill (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of get-off-my-lawn peeves of my own, but this is about the least motivated one I can imagine. What in the world is less polite about "get" compared to "have"??? One seems to emphasize the process of acquiring the item versus the state of possessing it, but that's about the only difference I can see. They're both peculiar circumlocutions, being in the conditional mood and asking whether something is possible rather than asking for the thing. Paraphrasing, it's something like "under unspecified but likely false conditions, would a possible world exist in which I have/acquire the item under discussion?" The answer "yes" does not seem to be an agreement to provide the item, merely an agreement that under such conditions, such a possible world would exist. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting either sentence with "May I" would be better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With "may", literally speaking, you're asking for permission to have/acquire the item. That doesn't make a lot of sense either. It's usually not about permission; you're requesting a service from the other person. --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we, 1813 or something? It's all predicated on what the barrista asks. If she says "What can I get you?", the easy, simple and polite answer is just "A flat white, please." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Customer: "Can I get a flat white?" Waitress: "Not here, but I can get one for you. If you want to get it yourself go home." DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Now we seem to have Mr Darcy stumbling into the Costa Coffee in Tunbridge Wells... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Get" is one of the most overloaded verbs in the English language. I expect in any random large dictionary you'll find at least a dozen meanings. To be fair, a lot of those will be as part of phrasal verbs, which isn't under discussion here.

But one of the core meanings is "receive" or "acquire". When the barista gives you a coffee, you do get it. Otherwise how would you drink it? --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it, do you? DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you're trying to defend an indefensible position. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That British English and American English work differently? DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That there's something inherently rude about saying "get a cup of coffee". --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncouth. OED: "unfamiliar or strange... odd, uncomely, awkward, or clumsy... awkward and uncultured". I never said "inherently rude". It is, however, inherently rude to say I said something which I did not. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the original comment did (I presume half-jokingly) call us get-users "indolent", it wouldn't be too farfetched to interpret that disdain as being a result of finding the phrasing (and its perceived lack of manners) rude. GalacticShoe (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The youth in my part of Australia seem to say "Can I please have....", which seems somehow wrong to my ageing ears. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"May I please have" is better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Can" (or "could") is appropriate if there is some question of pracicality. —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My closest friend, born 1955 and raised in Beverly Hills (on the wrong side of the tracks), says "can I get". I, raised in Illinois, would never say that. —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Near the end of Animal House, one guy walks into a store, goes to the counter, and says, "May I have 10,000 marbles please?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, lady ...

I was in a shop on Saturday, second in the queue. The woman in front was served, paid, and left. I stepped up, and discovered she had left her glasses on the ledge below the counter. I was moved to call out to her, and I was just about to yell "Hey, lady, you've forgotten your glasses" but I realised that would sound crass and vulgar, so I said "Hey, madam, ...". She heard me, and came back for her glasses, thanking me.

As I was basking in the sunlight of my kindness, I reflected that as a child, I was taught to refer to women as ladies, and that has pretty much always been my way. Ladies are obviously women, but there's something not quite right about referring to them as such. Don't ask me to explain it, it's subtle and probably culturally complex. Yet, to call out "Hey, lady" in public would be an even worse social sin. Nobody is ever called "Madam" these days (not even Ethel Merman), but that seemed the only choice I had left in that moment of crisis and high drama.

Is there a term for a word choice that is preferred in one context (not women, but ladies) but contraindicated in another (Not "hey, lady", but "hey, madam")? (Please don't get into whether "hey" was an appropriate choice, or whether it irretrievably outed me as the vulgarian I spend my life trying not to be.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite responsive, but it brings to mind a memory. One time I was out to dinner with my mother and sister. I think we were taking my mom out for her birthday or something. The waiter kept addressing my mom as "lady". It was clear to my sister and me that this was intended to be a term of respect — the waiter seemed likely to be Mexican (as in from Mexico, not just of Mexican ancestry) and was perhaps thinking in Spanish, translating the title "Señora". But it didn't come across to my Mississippian mother. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Some subtlety of politeness or manners. And I would use "ma'am", not "madam", which is kind of old-fashioned. For whatever reason, calling a woman just "lady" has come to be kind of insulting, even though referring to them indirectly as "ladies" still works. Similarly, I wouldn't call a man "mister", but "sir". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the various uses of "lady",[1] it occurs to me that in your context, even better than "ma'am", though much more old-fashioned, could be "me lady". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of ma'am versus madam varies by region; see Wiktionary:ma'am#Usage notes. ‑‑Lambiam 09:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that the establishment in which this incident occurred was not one in which "Coo-ee, Sheila!" would have been appropriate? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.101.226 (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no places where such a thing would be said. By anyone. Ever. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just have said "excuse me" to get her attention. --Viennese Waltz 06:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recall once when the women in the office were referring to each other as "girls". Like a good wannabe feminist, I questioned that, and the answer was, "Women are 'old'!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But woe betide a man who calls them "girls" these days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grrlz ? ‑‑Lambiam 09:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would never, ever use "madam" due to one of its meanings having to do with procuring (prostitution). "Lady" is a bit unusual in these here parts, so IMO ma'am is the safest choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, Lady, Hey"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I guess that's similar how to "colored person" is considered extremely offensive, while the correct term is "person of color". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, aside from use at some high society events that I would never be invited to, calling a woman "madam" where I live would probably result in her slapping you. Or her husband/boyfriend (or brother or father) inflicting even more physical damage upon you. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or old-fashioned formality, as with the opening lines of "Paperback Writer": "Dear sir or madam, will you read my book? It took me years to write, will you take a look?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, but some stuff hit differently depending on the mode of communication. The song is a quote from a letter and starting letters with Sir/Madam is not the same as starting a verbal conversation. For example, you wouldn't end your conversation with "With kindest regards..." either. Matt Deres (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISMO has a routine about being called "sir" and how it generally means you're in trouble somehow. It's funny because it's true. --Trovatore (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

In an early Simpsons episode, Homer longs for the situation of being called "Sir" without having "You're making a scene" appended. FWIW, I call and am called sir many times a day; it just seems to be standard address among coworkers here. Matt Deres (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. What line are you in, if you don't mind sharing? --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a regional thing. I have various American Facebook friends, some of whom called me "sir" when we first started interacting. I told them there was no need for such a deferential approach with me, but they said it's the norm where they live (mainly southern-ish states). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I did a postdoc at North Texas. One of my colleagues had a four-year-old daughter, and he would address her with "yes, ma'am" from time to time. But Matt, if I'm not mistaken, is Canadian, though of course it's conceivable he could have moved to the Southern US. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Canadian. A "sir" is going to be deferential by default, but this is not a worker to manager or employee to client kind of thing. And, AFAICT, the "ma'am" equivalent isn't used to the same degree. I do business analytics now, but most of my earlier jobs were more blue-collar and in those places "sir" was standard: between coworkers, manager to employee, you name it. "Catch the game last night?" "Yes, sir." It's hard to get perspective; maybe I just happened to work in a few places where that happened to have caught on, but I honestly started noticing it when I got to junior high. Before that, teachers were exclusively Ms/Miss/Mr/Mrs X, but in junior high, sir and ma'am suddenly became standard. That'd be mid-1980s, I guess. Matt Deres (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

"Bidirectional" language instruction

Is there a term for a language class where speakers of two languages each learn the other's language? And is there a pedagogical tradition of this anywhere? 71.126.56.251 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Language exchange seems somewhat close to what you have in mind, although the article doesn't look particularly good. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden, I have heard about tandem meetups, but they're rather just two persons meeting than regular classes. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, there even is a Wikipedia article; Tandem language learning. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

Has served v has been serving..... since 1000 BC (lol)

Why are some editor saying that I can't write "He Has been serving as mayor since 2024" on politician page because its a Biography. I have to write "He has served as mayor since 2024" M1rrorCr0ss 10:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a simple "He has been mayor..."?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A related issue is that '. . . serving . . .' is present tense, which might be true on the day that edit is made, but which may not be a week (or whatever) later, meaning the article will then be making an incorrect statement unless and until an editor (you?) remembers to correct/update it.

It would be better to use different phrasing, for example something like "He began serving as mayor in 2024 . . ." so that after he's stopped (for whatever reason), the sentence is not stating a falsehood.

For more details, see MOS:CURRENT and its on-links. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.101.226 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both forms are present perfect, so they imply that the serving started in the past and continues at present. That in itself is not a problem for Wikipedia, assuming that articles are regularly updated. I guess the issue is rather that the progressive aspect is simply unnecessary. Taken literally, the progressive aspect conveys the notion that the serving is continuous and uninterrupted by weekends and vacations or even a good nights sleep. The non-progressive form is perfectly adequate to describe the situation and is simpler. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that a politician has actually been "serving" could be a POV violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that becoming a mayor involved extra servings of weekends and vacations! Gammon fritters, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn’t there a laughing react on Wikipedia? I’d be using it way too much! M1rrorCr0ss 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? 🤣 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears as a little rectangle on my screen. You could try some old-school typed emojis like this :D or :-) Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or actually, in this case (-; as in a smiley with tears from laughter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri_language#Gender

Hello,

Could someone explain how a word like "basket" can have a masculine and feminine form in Kashmiri? It doesn't seem to make much sense in English, but perhaps it's not this exact meaning in that language?

Thank you 87.88.155.10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we knew the Kashmiri forms we might (perhaps) give a specific explanation, but it is by itself not unusual that a term for something inanimate has several genders in some gendered language. For example, German Brezel is most commonly masculine but can also be neuter, and its Frenchified form bretzel can be masculine and feminine. Another ambigender French term is the slang word clope ("cigarette"). Dutch terms with multiple genders include matras ("mattress") and schilderij ("painting"). Latin flasco ("bottle") can be masculine and feminine, and so can Ancient Greek ληΐς ("booty"). ‑‑Lambiam 21:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Yes, I know but here there are two different forms – one masculine and one feminine – for the same inanimate object, whereas all the other examples given are either living beings or adjectives changing forms according to the gender of the noun. 87.88.155.10 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's often dialectal. Dutch meer ("lake") is usually neuter, but in the Amsterdam dialect it's (if I understood correctly) common gender, which is the union of masculine and feminine. I suppose feminine schilderij is dialectal too, as the word appears overwhelmingly neuter. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, "Brezel" is usually female in German (as the Wiktionary page correctly states). —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Kashmiri, so like Lambiam's this is another slight digression, but Italian has lots of pairs of words, one masculine and one feminine, meaning the same or closely related things. Sometimes it's systematic, like with tree fruits, where the the tree is masculine and the fruit is feminine (melo/mela "apple", pero/pera "pear", ciliegio/ciliegia "cherry"). Sometimes it's a one-off that doesn't seem to generalize (cera wax, cero ~~waxen figure~~ large ceremonial votive candle). Sometimes it's really confusing, like tavolo/tavola, which both translate as "table" but are not exact synonyms, and I go crazy trying to remember when you use each of them. And sometimes they're exact synonyms (mattino/mattina, "morning"). --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fun: Lots of words that come from the Latin second declension neuter are masculine in the singular but feminine in the plural, and the plural ends in -a rather than the more usual -i (masculine) or -e (feminine). Uovo/uova "egg(s)", labbro/labbra "lip(s)", lenzuolo/lenzuola "sheet(s)", as in on a bed. Some of these have the extra twist that the feminine plural is used only for a matched pair, whereas the generic plural is masculine. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I see, there are also examples in French, like jour and journée that, while not being strictly synonymous, have senses close to each other. 87.88.155.10 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That one has an exact counterpart in Italian, giorno/giornata, and the difference in meaning is also the same, as near as I can tell. Roughly un giorno is a time interval, whereas una giornata is what you did with that time. I think that's more or less the same in French? --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, the word "papa" when used with a feminine definite article ("la papa") means "the potato", but when used with a masculine definite article ("el papa") means "the pope". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, "la papa" derives from the Quechua word for potato, while "el papa" comes from Greek via Latin, the same source as "papá" meaning "father". As an aside, "la" vs. "el" vaguely speaks to the hypothesis that "la" refers to naturally-occurring things while "el" refers to man-made things. The la and el meanings could comverge if they were ever to make a Mr. Potato Head icon of the Pope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Kashmiri dictionary [2] has "phọ̆t^u: m. a moderately large kind of basket used for holding paddy; such a basket full of paddy; so much paddy as will fill such a basket." and "phŏt^ür^ü: f. a small kind of basket for carrying paddy; such a basket filled with paddy; so much paddy as will fill such a basket. (These baskets are plastered over with mud.)". Other words for different kinds of basket are also listed. Apparently Kashmiri has a rich vocabulary relating to baskets, with some fine distinctions. —Amble (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I come to think of the Spanish distinction between "la barca" (smaller boat) and "el barco" (bigger boat). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or more to the point wikt:cesta/wikt:cesto and wikt:canasta/wikt:canasto. The masculine form si usually bigger thatn the feminine. In wikt:baloncesto ("basketball") you score a canasta but, according to the DLE, cesta, cesto and canasta are applicable to the basketball basket. I never heard it called a canasto but I wouldn't deny any dialect uses it.

--Error (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

"Purdue" with a Russian accent?

A 1984 article in Sports Illustrated profiled Max Blank, a basketball player who was a Jewish immigrant from the Soviet Union (specifically Odessa, Ukraine). He was recruited by many colleges. The article said that his mother was "concerned when letters came from Purdue and Drake; both words have an unsavory meaning when pronounced with a Russian accent." I recognize that "Drake" could be pronounced like dreck / дрек / דרעק (meaning "crap"), but what Russian, Yiddish, or Ukrainian unsavory word does "Purdue" correspond to? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's this, but there's пердун (perdún) which sounds somewhat similar and means "someone who farts". GalacticShoe (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems like a plausible explanation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

No Navajo language classes? Why is this not visible on United States?

Hello there, is there a reason on why are not there Navajo language classes common in schools? Why are Native American languages not seen anywhere on United States? Why are they mostly limited to reservation areas or cultural centers? Can anyone explain please? 2600:387:15:4915:0:0:0:5 (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure myself but I think it has something to do with the significance of Native American culture in the US, and how we as Americans see it. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 12:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Navajo? It has only 170,000 speakers, compared with millions of speakers of some of the other thousand or so Indigenous languages of the Americas. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be because of the well-known use of Navajo in WWII by code talkers. Of course, Navajo was chosen exactly because it had so few native speakers and there was only one published study of the language, all the copies of which could be located and confiscated from US academic libraries. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the code talking still have any significance? I would rather assume it's due to Navajo lacking both soft and hard power. It is of little practical usage outside of the core community, and there are no significant econonomic payoff, if you would go through the trouble of learning a language significantly different from English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little fact that may or may not be true, but sticks around in my head, is that Navajo is one of the hardest languages for Anglophones to learn. "Essentially unlearnable after childhood" is the exact phrase that sticks in my head. --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem to be true. "Research indicated that...after the age of around thirteen it would be virtually impossible for an Anglo to learn the Navajo language." [3] --Antiquary (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems exaggerated, considering that foreigners could learn languages such as Japanese, Chinese and Arabic. It's difficult, but it can be done. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case, though, that the Navajo language is much more difficult to learn than Japanese, Chinese and Arabic, both its pronunciation and its grammar. ‑‑Lambiam 19:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for someone to respond "challenge...accepted". Mildly tempted myself but Arabic seems more useful. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

To me, I would recommend Hungarian or Vietnamese languages. They are complex, but less than Navajo. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent visit to a local museum, I discovered that Google Translate was refusing to speak Navajo to me, and refusing to translate into or out of that language. Despite having knowledge of other indigeneous tongues such as Nahuatl.

And I was led to the same conclusion, that this has something to do with the Code Talkers and the sensitivity, to this day, of the secret codes which they safeguarded. Perhaps Navajo is a difficult language, but I did not encounter trouble finding a lexicon or two in the library of my local research university, and native speakers are likewise easy to find near me.

So the only way I could explain Google's omission is that it is still a sensitive issue of national security. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:B56F:F4D0:96B7:6CDF (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very unlikely to me. If I go to translate.google.com and click the language dropdown button, I see six columns of around forty languages each, so call it 250 languages total. Our Navajo language article says that it has about 170,000 speakers who use it at home. According to this link, the 100th most spoken language, Sanaani Spoken Arabic, still has 11 million native speakers. So it seems plausible that Navajo is not in the top 250, or even if it is, it might be that there's not enough training data available for the AI stack. That explanation seems a lot more plausible than the idea that there is still sensitive information in code-talker format that people would be able to understand if only Google would translate it for them. (Note as well that Navajo-based code talking was rather far removed from natural Navajo language.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GT does translate Manx though, which according to our article is spoken by 23 people as their first language and 2,200 as their second. That suggests that the number of speakers isn't GT's primary concern when choosing languages. --Antiquary (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A more likely concern is the potential level of use. The Isle of Man is a popular tourist destination, and adds Manx to public signage (Manx being an official language there alongside English), so many visitors will want to translate Manx out of interest, aside from Manx learners (it's taught in schools) wanting to utilise the app. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.170.37 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you get down to these more obscure languages I doubt we can expect a fully strategic approach even on the part of a giant like Google. It could come down to whether there's an engineer who wants to take it on as a 20% project or something, getting the corpus together and training the model. --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which languages native to North America have a million speakers? —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Nahuatl, I think. (Remember that North America goes all the way to Panama.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, Kʼicheʼ language and Qʼeqchiʼ language, which appear to be related but distinct, if our articles can be relied on. They have 1.1M and 1.3M respectively. Google Translate appears to support Qʼeqchiʼ but not Kʼicheʼ, so maybe the line is around there (or maybe there is no exact line; they just support what they can easily support). Anyway they both have many times more speakers than Navajo, which for 2600's comparison has about as many home speakers as the population of Tempe. I don't think we need to bring in spycraft to explain why GT doesn't support Navajo, despite its considerable cultural importance in the American Southwest. --Trovatore (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo is the most spoken indigenous language in the United States, but it has essentially no cultural cachet and has never been learned by many people except members of the Navajo Nation. Like many Native Americans the Navajo are often stereotyped as lazy, stupid, and prone to alcoholism, and having been betrayed so often by Anglo promises of help are not especially welcoming of outsiders. Many/most Navajo learn English in school and use it to communicate with others. I doubt the language is actually harder for English speakers than Chinese or other tonal, non-Indo-European languages, but I've never really studied it. With limited demand from potential language learners, and limited supply in the form of native speakers trained to teach (especially in places of any size) there is no real way for formal classes to get off the ground. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but how would this impact on the ethnicity, if there are no stereotypes?

Why do they still learn English though? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? Some folks take up a new language out of curiousity, but most of them do so for more practical reasons such as travel, immigration, business, etc. which would rarely apply here. Matt Deres (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning that this is hardly unique to Navajo. Language teaching and learning overwhelmingly focusses on a small number of languages with a lot of speakers. Whether it's for travel, or for business, or just to enjoy foreign language films, the main consideration is how many people speak it, and how that intersects with your holiday plans/business relationships/tastes in movies.

Minority languages tend to only get taught if there's a government promoting them. Welsh e.g. has the strong support of authorities in Wales, who stopped and reversed its decline partly through education. Other examples include Basque and Catalan supported by their own regional governments. Or even French in Quebec (French is hardly in danger of extinction but it might not be still spoken in Canada without Quebec's promotion of it).

In theory this could happen in the US; US states have a similar amount of autonomy to their Spanish or Canadian counterparts. But invading Europeans were efficient at wiping out the native population, driving them off their lands which they then carved up among themselves. When the US govt. eventually recognised them it was as nations separate from the 50 states, independent with no role in state or federal government.--2A04:4A43:904F:FAD8:103A:AAF3:3656:D93 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Ireland the Gaeltacht was in danger of being wiped out before the government stepped in. 2A01:4B00:B70B:B000:A714:E8E5:E04D:80E0 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge @Antiquary @Eluchil404 @Gommeh @Lambiam @Matt Deres @Shantavira @Tamfang I wanted you people to discover and research on if the Navajo language is still used today. As of 2025, Navajo is made into official language on the Navajo Nation. As of 2024, Duolingo has Navajo courses and first movie, Star Wars, dubbed the film into indigenous languages. Could the same goes with Cherokee? And further than that, how could this language grow into numbers again? I see this Wikipedia has the project dedicated into Navajo language. But I'm never sure about other social media sites, featuring and supporting this type of language. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are conservation efforts going on in America for certain tribal languages, but I'm not too familiar on the subject and am not really that interested in it so I don't know the specifics. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 18:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What conservation efforts going on in America to make for? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Subjects of sentences beginning with "Unlike P, Q"

I support that in any sentence beginning with the prepositional phrase "Unlike P" must have a subject Q that parallels the P. Example:

Incorrect: Let's learn to play poker. Unlike some card games, there is no ranking with suits.

Correct: Let's learn to play poker. Unlike some card games, poker has no ranking with suits.

(For anyone who wants to respond to this post, please check out the recent edit I made to the Roulette article.) Is this rule proscribed by many grammarians?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They both work, but your second example is better, i.e. clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not a rule that is followed assiduously:

Unlike what we have seen in Russia and in the current repression of the media and Internet shutdowns in Belarus, we do not block access to the internet, and people in our country are free to express and disseminate their views both online and offline.^[4]
Unlike the situation with respect to the trading of goods and services across national boundaries, some might argue that the parameters of the so-called "international technology market "remain vague and ill defined.^[5]
Unlike last year, supplies of baler twine and wire are expected to be more than adequate this year.^[6]

‑‑Lambiam 07:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you're spot on, imo. In the incorrect version, the 2nd sentence has to be read in conjunction with its 1st sentence, otherwise it's not referring to anything in particular, not even, necessarily, to a card game. In the correct version, the 2nd sentence works fine as it is. However, in common discourse, nobody would misunderstand the incorrect version. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence exhibits one of the many forms of Ellipsis (linguistics) which is common in many languages, particularly when spoken. (Here, "in poker" has been omitted). Usually, although words omitted in ellipses might be required by strict rules of grammar, actually inserting them can often seem pedantic and would become tedious. Many uses of ellipsis are considered acceptably grammatical. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.170.37 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being the pedant that I am, I feel an urge to point out that if we seek to make the pre-elision sentence fully grammatical, we need to insert one more word:

Unlike in some card games, there is no ranking with suits in poker.

‑‑Lambiam 19:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still elided. "Unlike the case in some card games, in poker there is no ranking in suits. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.170.37 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

New words coined in 2020s

Since the technology and revolution has advanced, there are new words coined. Although I agree that old words have new meanings, there are words that are coined in recent times. But aside from COVID-19, which is an actual neologism, and this pandemic have accelerated the new words coined rapidly in 2020, are there any new words that are coined and invented in decade of 2020s, and if so, can you list them? To me, new words are necessary to keep the English language ongoing, and words are what define the real world. But including all the aspects of the topic, which are technology, culture, science, politics, religion, philosophy, military, laws, history, arts, and finally literature, can you make an explanation on why are newer words coined in 2020s, are way too difficult to detect and notice, and what happens if its trending? Where could you find the new words coined in 2020s? Thank you if you if you would answer my question, since mine is informative. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "new words in 2024" and found quite a few references. You could do likewise for the years 2020 onward. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I searched it up too. But I wanted to see that if these type of words are attested. But, what are the words that are in first used in 2020s? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respelling

Why an /aɪ̯/ sound at the beginning of world is respelled as eye, not as y? For example, why is item respelled as EYE-təm and not as Y-təm? And why is an /aɪ̯/ sound at monosyllabic words before a consonant respelled with silent e, such as tight being TYTE and not TYT? --40bus (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y by itself is not pronounced like a long I. EYE is pronounced like a long I. and TYTE would be pronounced with a long I, while TYT would probably be pronounced with a short I. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 15