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 20

Dog knows dog

I searched hours but didn't find any specific useful information about its origin. I will appreciate any help. Omidinist (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was original, but the earliest use I found, with "dog" in its literal sense, referring to man's best friend, is here, from 2018. The next use is from the same author, less than a year later. The first use I saw with "dog" in the sense of "all men are dogs" is in a comment posted in 2022 on this Facebook video. Then the sense is that of it takes one to know one, with an echo of dog eat dog. ‑‑Lambiam 20:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Omidinist (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

False titles and noun adjuncts

Isn't a false title just an instance of noun adjunct? If so, why can't I find any sources which describe false titles as noun adjuncts other than this answer on Stack Exchange? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at "false title", it strikes me that it's misleading. Saying that "convicted bomber McVeigh" is a "false title" ignores the fact that it's not capitalized, and it's not a title; it's merely descriptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation is a null issue in spoken language. Denying that it's a title is the nub of the issue: it operates exactly as if it were a title, whatever the author's intention was. Hence "pseudo-title". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...predominantly found in journalistic writing", per the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I hear it all the time on TV and radio news reports, whether from local or international sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Time magazine used to capitalize them, so that it would include locutions like "Editor William Shawn" or "Movie Star John Wayne". Deor (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or even Football Enthusiast Joseph Sixpack. —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This trope has been highlighted in criticisms of the writing style of Dan Brown, who is inclined to introduce characters with paragraphs beginning something like "Eminent phlebotomist Fred Smith walked down the corridor . . . ." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these answer my question. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be reasonable to describe a false title as a noun adjunct. Anecdotally, I only see words described as noun adjuncts when they modify common nouns, and I can't think of noun adjuncts that modify proper nouns that aren't false titles. A deep dive into this topic is complicated by the level of discourse about false titles, which has been stuck for a long time at the "are they acceptable?" level. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not titles, they are merely identifiers. The notion that they somehow are titles, sounds like OR, maybe by someone who does not speak English natively. One could argue that the "false titles" article is a POV fork from "noun adjuncts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How could one argue that? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BB, these are commonly called false titles. You're free to disagree with the experts here, but it'd be better to present it as an unorthodox opinion of yours than as an accepted fact. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it until this question came up, and doubt it's in "common" usage. It's merely descriptive. Like terrorist bomber McVeigh as opposed to barber shop owner McVeigh or librarian McVeigh, as a hypothetical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly the intent. But the absence of "the" makes a difference. "Actor George Wendt" is identical in form to "President Donald Trump" and "Sergeant Joe Bloggs" and "Mayor Quimby" and "Fire Chief Bill Smith". That's why, in this construction, "Actor" has the form of a title, like President, Sergeant, Mayor and Fire Chief. In the way things used to be done, people talked of "the actor George Wendt", which was clearly solely descriptive. But then they dropped the article, and this had the effect of making the meaning technically ambiguous: it could be a title, or it could be merely descriptive. We know that the latter is the case, but from the viewpoint of a grammarian the wording suggests a title. Hence "pseudo-title". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In an English compound noun whose first component is a noun, such as alcohol abuse, baby boom and cable car, the main stress is on the first component. The main stress in Dandy Dave is on the second component. Therefore I think we should not classify Dandy in this combination as a noun adjunct. ‑‑Lambiam 21:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they're considered appositives and not noun adjuncts because removing "convicted bomber" from "convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh" (i.e. just "Timothy McVeigh") does not change the meaning of the phrase. Nardog (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an example is the usage in the USA when referring to our British Dear Leader as "Prime Minister Starmer", whereas the usual form over here would be "the prime minister, Sir Kier Starmer". Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four languages (medium/learned) by 9th grade in countries

Hello,

which countries have four languages overall (medium and or learned) by 8th grade of school.

Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that, within the country but perhaps in different regions of it or for pupils of differing family backgrounds, four languages will have been taught (or taught in) in various combinations of two or three (in which case Switzerland and Singapore seem likely examples), or that all pupils are usually taught/taught in a total of four languages?

(For the large majority of the world who, like me, are unfamiliar with the US Age/Grade system, I gather that 9th Grade corresponds to about 14–15 years old.)

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several countries with four or more official languages, but then, their distribution is mostly areal, and all languages aren't widely used in education. However, it might still be common for speakers to learn four or so languages with passable fluency, just for general communication in daily life. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands, alongside the official language Dutch, English, German and French are all mandatory at school. Those are the official languages of the neighbouring countries (if you count the UK as neighbouring; there are ferry connections). Schools may offer additional languages and for some there are official exams; my school offered Latin, Greek and Russian. In the province Fryslân the regional language Frisian may be offered. I think the situation is similar in Belgium, where Dutch, French and German are all official and English is too important to ignore. I'm not sure about Switzerland, but I expect everybody learns German, French, Italian and English. PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for Nigel Powers' hatred of the Dutch: language ~~one-upmanship~~ three-upmanship. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. What about non-European countries? Sarcelles (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be common with widespread passable multilingualism in some Asian and African countries. But then, it's mainly one or two languages that are used in education. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Oxford English Dictionary Third Edition

I had two questions about the OED 3rd edition:

Is there an estimated time when it will be finished?
According to the Wikipedia entry, it seems that this edition will never be printed. If it did appear in book form, how big would it be (either in its current state or its estimated completion?). 76.7.193.12 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows. As stated above, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, we may observe that (as stated in Oxford English Dictionary) OED3 is expected to be completed by 2037, and to double the size of the dictionary. (Personally, I would expect both estimates to be exceeded, but I should not speculate.) Edit: OED2 in print filled 20 volumes. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 23:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

Ultrarelativistic

If hyper- or ultrarelativistic is the formal or technical term used to describe something that is travelling very close to lightspeed, what would be the opposite of this; what would be the formal or technical term used to describe something that is faster than lightspeed?

If no such term exists in real-life sciences due to the impossibility of the feat, for the sake of let's say, a fictional work; what would a proper term for energy, objects, electromagnetic radiation, etc. that travel faster than light would be constructed like (for example, would it make more sense to borrow from Latin or Greek)? 72.234.12.37 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One term that's been used is superluminal. See the article Faster-than-light. Deor (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of that term, but I assumed it was an invention by science-fiction creatives, rather than coined by any scholar, physicist, or scientist of some repute. 72.234.12.37 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The OED's "earliest evidence" of it is in the writings of Karl Popper in 1959. I too would have guessed it to be earlier, and possibly from a Science Fiction author, but the latter would not make it 'disreputable' – a number of scientifically accepted terms originated in Science Fiction, and of course some SF writers did and do have academic science qualifications and even were/are practicing scientists.

Astronomers were observing apparent faster-than-light motion from as early as 1901, so it would not be surprising if someone had coined the fairly obvious term 'superluminal' well before the 1950s. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction lists a number of terms used in fiction here. I am surprised at the absence of terms using the prefix trans-, such as transwarp in Star Trek. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 19:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

transwarp is a recent coinage and not popular among readers or writers of science fiction or even Star Trek fans who are neither, not least because it is more than usually meaningless, even for television technobabble. Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also wikt:tachyonic 122.56.85.105 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Usage guides and "It's me"

Usage guides tell people it is incorrect (not just disliked by formal grammarians, but incorrect) to say "It's me" because "is" is a linking verb. Do these people understand that we cannot control how language is used in practice?? Are there any sites online that are flexible enough to ensure they're not saying that the rule that we use subject pronouns after linking verbs is followed by good speakers even in everyday talk?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the usage guides you're reading 100 years old? Any modern guide will tell you that the use of objective pronouns after "to be" is now practically universal. Zacwill (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zacwill, I find them by doing Google searches on sites like Grammar Monster. Here's a page that really says it is incorrect: https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000021.htm Georgia guy (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general "usage guides" are for written language, not spoken. It would be unusual to say It's me (or It is I, for that matter) in print. --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage guides are usually conservative, because writing or saying the technically correct "x" will rarely annoy anyone, while writing/saying the technically incorrect but casually popular "y" may offend a significant number (such as officials, job interviewers, prospective in-laws, etc.) even if only on the unconscious level. In anything beyond so-called "social media", written English is usually expected to be more formal or 'correct' than spoken.

Most if not all languages have different registers of speech, 'ascending' from how one might speak to fellow youths in the street, through friends, parents, work colleagues, employers, speech audiences, and (say) judges, perhaps culminating in royalty. These registers can include different grammatical constructions, so saying "It's me" (and similar locutions) is appropriate at many levels at which "It is I" would be laughable, whereas saying "It's me" might be less appropriate than "It is I" (or similar) when, say, getting knighted. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how even in this thread, nobody considers the form "it's I". Why? Because it would be a mix of registers. "It is I" is formal, "it's me" is informal, but "it's I" is just not used at all, except perhaps for comical effect. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It is I, Leclerc!" DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if you can't say either "it's me" or "it's I", how can you say it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's-a-me! ---Sluzzelin talk 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can say either: the former (though incorrect by strict grammatical rules) will sound normally acceptable in anything but very formal speech, the latter (though correct by those rules) will sound odd, suggestive of not-native English or an attempt at 19th-century style.

Grammatical 'rules' are an after-the-fact attempt to analyse and systematise how people speak and write (a long and ongoing process of evolution-by-consensus); they are not some Platonic ideal from which speech and writing stem. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'État, c'est moi. If it was good enough for Louis XIV, it's good enough for moi. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Indo-European languages with grammatical case I'm familiar with, the nominative case is used for both the subject and the predicative expression. So this shows once again that English has lost its case system. Which doesn't mean that Germans normally say Es ist ich. They turn it around: Ich bin's "I'm it." Or if they want to emphasise the it-part: Das bin ich "That am I." And so do the Dutch. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish, the main option is mainly the nominative Det är jag, while I think that in Danish and Norwegian, on the other hand, it's the oblique Det er meg. (I'm not sure on whether Det here should be interpreted as it or that though, as Scandinavian basically only has one single word.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In colloquial German one would say, Das bin ich or Ich bin's (with overlapping but not identical meanings), not Es bin ich. ‑‑Lambiam 19:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian you would say sono io, again conjugating the verb to agree with "I". Italian is a pro-drop language but I'm not sure what pronoun you would be said to be dropping here. Spanish seems to be similar, at least if Don Quixote can be trusted in his musical version. If that's playing in your head right now, you're welcome; if it isn't, get some culture, baby. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

«Io sono io, don Chichì è don Chichì.»^[1] ‑‑Lambiam 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Trovatore, I had that Broadway-cast album as a teenager, and I well remember Richard Kiley belting out "It is I, Don Quixote, the lord of La Mancha. ..." Deor (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. But the lyric is "I am I, Don Quixote". Presumably calqued from Spanish soy yo, I'd guess, which would be the same as Italian sono io. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

You're right, of course. My memory isn't what it once was. Deor (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

The Isle of Man

I'd like to have a go at rewriting the Name section on the Isle of Man article (which is somewhat messy at the moment) and am in the process of gathering sources. I'm having trouble finding any that discuss the Manx name for the island (Mannin), however. Wiktionary claims that the name was originally Mana but that the dative form later displaced the nominative form. This sounds plausible (the same thing happened with Albain in Irish), but I can't find anything outside Wiktionary that endorses it. The seven-volume work Placenames of the Isle of Man is useless in this regard, devoting only one paragraph to the name of the island itself. Zacwill (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not terribly helpful, but see The Name 'Man' in Gaelic Literature and Topography by W. Walter Gill.

Also Manx Place-Names: an Ulster View. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Place-Names of the Isle of Man With their Origin and History (1925) by John Joseph Kneen; especially Introduction: The Isle of Man... Its Name (p. xxii) (PS: I've just seen that you said this was useless, but there appears to be more than one paragraph in the linked section). Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful, thanks. I was referring to a different work with a similar title in my original post. This one I hadn't come across yet. Zacwill (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome (I probably should have clicked on your link first!). Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not explored its 26 pages of dense text, but the booklet "Mann" or "Man" (by the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, no less) may have some bearing? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

What languages have the earliest and latest start and end era for "Middle"?

And what languages have the earliest/latest end dates for "Early Modern"? Also I see large differences in dates for Early Modern English like mid-17th century or 1800 for the transition to Modern English why? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because these are arbitrary labels imposed on a process (Language change) that in this instance was mostly continuous, and different scholars disagree on how to define and apply them.

In history, one can point to and argue about specific events that might be used to mark transitions from one period to another; these might be battles, invasions, or changes of rulership, and in more distant eras broader events like adoptions of new pottery styles or new metals, or whatever.

What sort of markers can be used to make precise deliniations in the history of a language that develops mostly continuously, though unevenly according to local regions within its range and the educational levels of its speakers and writers? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There is no reason to expect any systematicity in such arbitrary labels as "Early", "Middle" and "Modern"; each of these will obviously be relative to the overall temporal outline of the development of a language. There are things like Middle Egyptian and Middle Babylonian – you'll probably find your "earliest" examples somewhere there. "Middle Persian" seems to be slightly older than "Middle Chinese", and so on. It's only in the European languages that there has been something of a convention to tie these labels to the overall cultural era terms for the "Middle Ages" and the "Modern Era", so if a language has a "Middle" phase, it will most likely be located somewhere in what is conventionally described as the medieval period. Not many languages besides English and German seem to have conventional periodization involving a separate "Early Modern" stage. Still, the individual period boundaries between such stages will differ quite widely between languages, depending when each of them had significant changes in their social and structural status (e.g., when did a language develop literacy, when did it produce particular highlights of "classic" literature, when did it get affected by the changes brought about by book printing, when did it experience particular pushes towards standardization, and so on. "Middle French" is significantly later than "Middle English" and "Middle High German", while "Middle Irish" is a good bit earlier; "Old Polish" is generally synchronous with "Middle" rather than Old English; Spanish has "Classical Spanish" where English has its "Early Modern", and so on. Much of this is of course primarily related to when each language started to be widely written. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is any evolutionary stage of a living Modern [Language] that's older than Middle Aramaic called Middle [Language]? Does any Middle [Language] end later than Middle Frisian? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider Coptic to be the modern continuation of Ancient Egyptian — it has died out as an everyday language, but is still used as the liturgical language of the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Catholic Churches). Middle Egyptian as a language spanned 2000–300 BCE, compared to Middle Aramaic's 200 BCE to 200 CE.

Middle Persian spanned 450 BCE to 650 CE; Modern or New Persian is also called Farsi, or Iranian, Dari and Tajik where spoken specifically in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

Afrikaans had a 'Proto-Afrikaans' stage in the 19th century CE; if it were analysed into 'Early' 'Middle' and 'Modern' stages, "Middle Afrikaans" would certainly post-date Middle Frisian (1550–1800 CE).

Hebrew, though a contemporary of Ancient Aramaic, died out as a regularly-spoken language by about 400 CE if not earlier (scholars argue, some say 200 BCE) though it persisted in written-only form. Modern Hebrew's revival from the late 19th century might be thought of as the creation of a new language, which if analysed into stages might yield a "Middle Modern Hebrew" within the 20th century — but I doubt that any linguist has done that. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle-Atlantic Accent was in fashion until around 1950. --Amble (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Middle geographically not temporally. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

"Good" ship

Where does the habit/style/preference of calling a ship "good" come from? Lightfoot uses the construction a few different ways in The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald and of course there's the plane of On the Good Ship Lollipop. More infamously, there's the much earlier Good Ship Venus. How did the "good" appellation become standard? Matt Deres (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've only found an even earlier song: I sailed in the good ship the Kitty (c1777-1778), by Charles Dibdin. There's some uncited speculation on a language board that it originally meant a "goods ship" as opposed to a warship. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! A bit more digging reveals that the traditional formula for a bill of lading (a certificate from a shipper that goods had been received and loaded onto a particular vessel) was from the 18th century:

"Shipped by the Grace of God in good Order, and well conditioned by... in and upon the good ship called the..."

(From THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BILL OF LADING: ITS FUTURE IN THE MARITIME INDUSTRY (p. 52))

The "good ship" element was a confirmation that the ship was in a seaworthy condition. Apparently, the need to make this declaration was removed in the UK by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924. [2]

Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persuant to the above, I found this text of a bill of lading of 1636:

Shipped by the grace of God in good order and well-conditioned by Mee, Thomas Goold merchant in and vpon the good Ship called the Mayflower of London. Whereof is Master under God for this present voyage Willyam Badiley and now riding at ankor in the Riuer of Lisboa and by Gods grace bound for London to say tene Chests of sugarrs namely Muscouado & 2 whites for the account present of the worshipfull Thomas Crossing of Exon merchant being marked and numbred as in the margent and are to be deliuerd in the like good order and wel conditioned at the ofersaid Port of London (the danger of the Seas only excepted) vnto Master Richard Poerry, or in his Absense Hugh Sander or to their assignes, he or they payning fraight for the said goods, After 16/8 per chest with primage and Avarage accustomed. An witness wherof the Master or Purser of the said ship hath affirmed to three Bills of Lading all of this tenont and date, the one of which three Bills being accomplished, the other two to stand void. And so God send the good Ship to her desired Port in safety. Amen. [3]

Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Whether it's directly derived from "goods ship" or not, it seems like "goods", "good order", and "good ship" share a long history. Before posting, I wondered if perhaps it came from the ratings ships were given for insurance purposes. Example. If given the choice, people would want their goods carried on a "good" ship. Matt Deres (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OED has it "In extended use of a ship, town, river, etc. (chiefly with reference to things personified or conventionally treated as feminine" under good: "Of a person: distinguished by admirable or commendable qualities; worthy, estimable, fine" in a 1400 MS of the Cursor Mundi, "Euer-mare þai lokid doun. quen þat gode ship sulde droun", and 1589 in Hakluytt "Being imbarked in the good shippe, called the Gallion of London". DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So having a good ship is like finding a good woman? Or man, for that matter, though I hear those are hard to find. Matt Deres (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or good hearts. DuncanHill (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason specifically for doctors, the good doctor, but rarely the good nurse.^[4] ‑‑Lambiam 05:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of goodwife and goodman, and good-king-henry. It's a medieval honorific, seems calling everything respected "good" was once a common habit. Card Zero (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Good Queen Bess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good King Wenceslas, in versions old enough not to reverse the wording, says, "Mark my footsteps, good my page...". ("...my good page..." would imply the existence, or at least the possibility, of a bad page, which is nowhere suggested in the story.) 213.143.143.69 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"My good lady wife" is a cousin of "goodwife". It's confined to a particular register. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

UK Parliament capitalisation rules

When we are referring to the UK parliament (or any other legislative body which functions in a similar way) as a common noun and not a proper noun, should it still be capitalised on Wikipedia pages? notadev (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might say somewhere in WP:MOS. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

How to find the most likely or common English text strings of a pattern?

i.e. " the " likely tops the list for string pattern " abc " case-sensitive, " ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ " case-insensitive is probably " subdermatoglyphic ", one of the more common "Abcdc! Abef ef abga abehi gigeh! Ga abc aghj E abehj ea hcckl bc" patterns case-sensitive is "There! This is that thing again! At the tank I think it needs he" and so on. There's likely a webpage or app that shows if a pattern matches a text corpus and how many times it's each string? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]