Wiki143:Reference desk/Language

Template:Pp-move-indef{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/L|WP:Refdesk/Lang|WP:Refdesk/Language}}

June 17

Vill du åka tunnelbanan?

I once saw a cartoon in Swedish where one guy asks another "Vill du åka tunnelbanan?" The second panel showed them riding a giant banana in a tunnel with one guy saying "Skittrevligt".

Now I am not a native Swedish speaker but I understand Swedish to a very good degree. I understood that the first guy was asking an ambiguous question "Do you want to ride the subway?" ("Tunnel-track") or "Do you want to ride the tunnel-banana?" and the second panel said something like "Damn cool". I assume the difference between the words "banan" (as in the definite form of bana, "track") and "banan" (as in "banana") is lost in writing but the first word is pronounced banan while the second form is pronounced banan.

Now my question is, strictly speaking, which of these is grammatically correct? The subway version, the banana version, both, or neither? JIP | Talk 20:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The bestämd form of banan is bananen, so "The tunnel banana" would be "tunnelbananen". So "Vill du åka tunnelbanan?" means either "Do you want to ride the subway?" OR "Do you want to ride tunnel-banana". I did find a Swedish lady warning people not to say tunnel-banana. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone in the Swedish subway industry has suggested decorating the trains to play off of this. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The lame pun can be applied to many things: the runway (startbanan for take-off, landningsbanan for landing), the tennis court (tennisbanan), the golf course (golfbanan), the racing track (racingbanan), the shooting range (skjutbanan), the roadway (vägbanan or körbanan), the slide (rutschbanan), and so on ad nauseam.  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Link? By the way, "tunnelbanan" is in definite tense ("the subway"), so it comes off as a bit forced to begin with. I find the indefinite variant "tunnelbana" ("a) subway") a bit more natural in this context. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

For links, try Wiktionary (startbanan etc.)  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant a link to the Swedish cartoon, not the words referenced... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

June 21

Clock

Do English speakers ever think that it is n when the hour number is n? This means that for example, it is "three" at 3:59? I have always thought so. I think that there are 24 "hours", numbered from 0 to 23, in each day, and each hour follows the hour number. -- 40bus

If it's 3:59, I would say it's "almost four", not "three". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It would go from :00 to :59. I think that it is three from 3:00 to 3:59 and "twenty-two" from 21:00 to 21:59. In Finnish, whole hours are read as nollanolla. For example, 5:00 is viisi nollanolla. 0:00 to 0:59 is read as nolla + minutes. Do English speakers read them as zero? And do English speakers ever use time ranges in 24-hour as like 7-21, if they can write them as 7:00-21:00, 7 am - 9 pm or 7:00 am - 9:00 pm? --40bus (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

In English, generally you're trying to approximate the nearest hour. Saying "it's three" when in reality it's nearly four would be misleading. Also, "three from 3:00 to 3:59 and 'twenty-two' from 21:00 to 21:59" is inconsistent. If you're going to use the preceding hour, 21:00 to 21:59 would be 'twenty-one', not 'twenty-two'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Context matters. Generally I'd say "It's almost four o'clock", but if I wanted to convey that there was still a little time before a 4pm deadline I'd say "It's three fifty-nine" or "It's a minute to four". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

In British English, we only say the unadorned number in casual speech, only do so for one to twelve (whether am or pm is understood from context), and only use it to refer to the 'on the hour' time. So we might say:

"It's nearly three" at, say, 02:56–9 or 13:56–9;

"It's three" or It's just on three" at 02:59–03:00 or 14:59–15:00;

"It's just gone three" at 03:01–4 or 15:01–4; and

"It's at three" referring to the time of a future event (like a football match kick-off) as being at 15:00.

We would never say "Zero" for 00:00, (in the military we might say "Oh-hundred hours") but rather "Midnight", and in other times with a '0' in them we usually say "Oh". And we would not use 24-hour ranges (rare, anyway) without specifying the full numbers, so "Oh-seven hundred to twenty-one hundred, never "Seven to twenty-one" which would be completely alien.

As you have been told before, in everyday speech people use the 12-hour clock; digital 24-hour times shown on watches and clocks are in speech unconsciously translated to 12-hour times. 24-hour times are generally only spoken in a military, transportation (e.g. bus and train times) or scientific context.

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I have grown using 24-hour and digital clocks and when I was younger, I wondered why analog clocks have only 12 hours and why they don't have 24 hours too. And are there any equivalent of [number][am/pm] + noun in 24-hour clock? For example: a 3pm football match - a 15 football match? In Finnish, a time around a whole hour is kello + number, and it can be used with both 24- and 12- hour clock, such as kello viidentoista ottelu. --40bus (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Tradition. See 12-hour clock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Also Cornish time. The minute hand seems mostly decorative.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

An analog (circular) clockface with 24 hours would be very crowded and difficult to read precisely (I believe there were a few mediaeval church clocks with 0–23 from an era when precision was not needed). It's possible that some clocks (at, say, Railway stations) once added 13–23 in smaller numbers (perhaps in red) next to 1–11 (likely in black) as an aid when 24-hour times were less familiar. No, British English speakers never say "15" for 3pm / 15:00.

Finnish and English are very different languages and cultures with completely different histories (yes, I have visited Finland); it is pointless to expect correspondences between them at such detailed levels. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

If medieval, a 24-hour analog dial would go 1–24. They were skeptical about zero. (The sundial on that page that enumerates midnight is puzzling.)  Card Zero  (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

At the moment I am writing this, the time in Finland is about 17:56. In my methodology, it is "seventeen". In Finnish, it is always read as seitsemäntoista viisikymmentäkuusi, never viisi viisikymmentä kuusi (although maybe neljä vaille kuusi). Does the 12-hour clock have a written numeric form in any Continental European countries. Finnish does not really have equivalent to am/pm. --40bus (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Gloss: it is always read as seventeen fifty-six, never five fifty six (although maybe four to spruce tree six).

wikt:p.m.#Translations shows some abbreviations equivalent to English p.m.. The Greek one may be seen in action at el:Ώρα, in the line Template:Tq "At sunrise, at 9 a.m., noon, 3 p.m., and 6 p.m., or at sunset". This Greek page explaining the 12-hour clock includes a use of "11:59μμ".  Card Zero  (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No, but there is evidence that we do something similar with prices, where $3,999 means something more than simply a dollar cheaper than $4,000. See psychological pricing. Although money may equal time, we apparently don't take quite the same approach with its values. Matt Deres (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

June 22

Foxmole

Apparently the soil of Strensall is "sand and foxmole", but what is foxmole? The source is 'Parishes: Strensall', in A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 2, ed. William Page (London, 1923) found on British History Online. TSventon (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find out, but the term is also used in a couple of 19th-century texts referring to Membury, Devon (see e.g. here), so we can at least conclude that it isn't a typo. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I also found it in that same text about Membury (and one other place, the article's source about Strensall, which is The Victoria history of the county of York, North Riding, 1923). It could be a typo that was made twice. Or an ad-hoc spelling, or a very obscure word. "Mole" might be for mold or mould, an old word for soil?  Card Zero  (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Foxmold is helpful, but still obscure. According to this paper, Een geologische verkenning van het kust gebied tussen Lyme Regis en Seatown, Dorset, Engeland, 1973, Grondboor & Hamer, 27(5), 135-148, Foxmold is "een grijs-geel tot grijs bruin zand met o.a. Exogyra conica en Pecten quadricostatus" [a grey-yellow to grey-brown sand containing Exogyra conica and Pecten quadricostatus]. Possibly foxmole is an alternative spelling. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a Dutch paper listing English words? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Wakuran it is a paper in Dutch about Dorset, which explains some English words. It is from 1973 so probably a similar paper would be presented differently in 2025. TSventon (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a misspelling (or local pronunciation spelling?) of "foxmould", a seemingly obscure geological term for the Upper Greensand Formation found, for example, in parts of Devon and Dorset, England, and typically presenting as sandy glauconite and sandy limestone, sometimes imparting a golden color to cliffs in the area. From what I read, Foxmould is typically found below Whitecliff Chert and Bindon Sandstone.[1] --William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 15:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The source (the county history book) has a footnote after "Its soil is sand and foxmole upon a subsoil of white and grey sandstone", which goes to page 34 of volume 1. Maybe that footnote explains how the Upper Greensand Formation, on the south coast, is present in York. I can't find volume 1, though. I bet this northern foxmole is just some brownish sand with no very scientific classification.

I took another look and found the spelling "foxmoor" in Kelly's History of Devon, which uses "foxmole" too.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The book The geology of the country near Sidmouth and Lyme Regis (H. B. Woodward and W. A. E. Ussher, 1911) attributes the term Foxmould to the geologist De la Beche, who wrote, in 1826, "Template:Tq" to describe a subdivision in the area.^[2] The layer beneath this Foxmould, De la Beche dubbed the "Template:Tq". The same source explains:

Template:Tq^[3]

 ​‑‑Lambiam 05:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all, it seems the answer is probably a variant of foxmould. TSventon (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The Foxmould Member (previously known as the Foxmould and Cowstone Beds) is a formal part of the Upper Greensand Formation, according to the British Geological Survey. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

June 24

Request to translate the inscription of The Virgin Recommends the City of Siena to Jesus to English

File:Gabella 40, neroccio di bartolomeo de' landi, la vergine raccomanda siena a gesù, 1480, 04.jpg

Template:Quote The language appears to be Italian, but this is from Siena in 1480. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess it's some older and/ or dialectal variant. Wikipedia has an article for the Tuscan dialect. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

With some corrections:

Questi sonno e nomi di queli spettabili cittadini stati allo offitio deli exeguitori di Cabella Genaio 1479 da finire come segue per sei mesi. E prima Mactio D'Antognio di Neri Chamarlengo, misser Iacomo di Benedeto, Nicolo D'Antonio di Guelfo, Francesco Gabrieli, Antonio di Baigio di Guido, Pavolo di ser Giovani di Francesco, ser Giovanni di Mariano Pacinelli. 1480 secodo Lulio come segue: missere Sotino di Fatio Bellarmati, Pavolo di Tommaso Orafo, Andrea di Iacomo D'Adreucio, Bartolomeo dal Cotono, ser Giovanni D'Agniolo di Manuccio.

The Tuscan dialect is the main progenitor of Italian. My attempt to transform this to current Italian resulted in

Questi sono i nomi di quegli rispettabili cittadini stati all'ufficio degli esecutori di Cabella nel Gennaio 1479 da finire come segue per sei mesi. E prima Macio D'Antognio di Neri Chamarlengo, signore Iacomo di Benedeto, Nicolò D'Antonio di Guelfo, Francesco Gabrieli, Antonio di Baigio di Guido, Pavolo di signore Giovani di Francesco, signore di Giovanni di Mariano Pacinelli. 1480 secondo Luglio come segue: signore Sotino di Fatio Bellarmati, Pavolo di Tommaso Orafo, Andrea di Iacomo D'Adreucio, Bartolomeo dal Cotono, signore Giovanni D'Agniolo di Manuccio.

I've used signore, but the now obsolete title ser is still commonly found in historical novels.

(Disclosure: my ability to produce correct Italian is limited; native speakers may be able to do a better job.)  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's a try: These are the names of those respectable citizens who were in the office of executors of the gabella for six months from January 1479. First there is Mario D'Antognio di Neri, chamberlain, <then other names follow as above>. 1480 from July onwards as follows, signore Sotino di Fatio Bellarmati <other names as above>. This translation into French helped me.-- 2A02:8424:6281:D401:D2C:54C8:C723:1A62 (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Eko, eno, esa...

The Childcraft book "Mathemagic" says that counting in Ashanti (a language of Africa) starts "Eko, Eno, esa..." But only one Internet site agrees with this: worldofchildcraft.com (no other web site.) Do sources like Childcraft make mistakes sometimes?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Ashanti seems to be an ethnicity rather than a language. Also, it seems that orthography in the region might vary, at least for the smaller languages. Adele and Kyode, of the broader Kwa family are fairly similar, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

There's Asante dialect.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ec My Ghanaian friends speak Twi, of which Ashanti is a sub-group. In the Twi dictionary [4] you can look up the numbers one, two, three and they all figure. 2A02:6B67:D985:CA00:6B41:D192:AA80:2F56 (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

So now is Wakuran's omniglot site wrong? It lists ohunu, baako, mmienu.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

In the Twi dictionary biako is "one" and mmienu is "two". Going over to Google Translate. 2A02:6B67:D985:CA00:6B41:D192:AA80:2F56 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the list starts at zero, I didn't notice that.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

For "one, two, three" Google returns Twi biako, abien, abiesa in line with the dictionary. 2A02:6B67:D985:CA00:6B41:D192:AA80:2F56 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, eko, enu, esa are in that dictionary under one, two, and three, as well. There's a lot of options for number names in Twi, evidently.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

To answer your actual question, yes, everybody makes mistakes. Personally I'd say "all the time" not just "sometimes", but that part is a matter of perspective.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Zompist's numbers list shows ekõ enyõ esã and similar forms for several languages related to Twi, fwiw. —Tamfang (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Using Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography

I am curious about how Wikipedia approaches using older styles of English, like the kind found in Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. This was done quite successfully in our article on the 19th-century American aeronaut and balloonist Washington Harrison Donaldson. Both another editor and I expressed on the talk page that we find the article a pleasure to read, engaging, and entertaining. But it strikes me that the MOS must recommend against this, othewise those of us who enjoy archaic English would be employing this style forthwith. So, what say you all? Are we allowed to write articles in the oldest English imaginable as long as the readers understand it? Or are we required to modernize the style we use, and if so, what is the approximate cut-off date? Can we write as if we are in 1900 like the Cyclopædia, or can we go back farther, and write as if it is 1800 instead? Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can extend WP:ENGVAR to also cover diachronic variety. Wouldn'it be totally skibidi to read all about Beowulf in Ænglisc?  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I take it the cutoff is 1700, then? Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There exists an article in Ænglisc, although it's very rudimentary. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Just wondering what the cutoff date is for modern English, in terms of it not throwing readers off here. In other words, if someone from the past wrote an article on Wikipedia in English with the goal of not being recognized and found out, at what point what they be caught? I suspect 1850 is the earliest date. What do you think? I've heard it said elsewhere that a century is basically the limit, so the reality is that it would be closer to 1925. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The Donaldson article reads more like a short story than an encyclopedic article and should be changed forthwith. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but wouldn't you also agree that our best articles have the strongest narratives approaching something like a "story" of sorts? If so, how do we know when too much is, too much? Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would feel comfortable going back to about 1600, assuming modern spellings and avoiding archaic words and usages. In other words, I don’t think there is a specific cutoff, so long as you are writing in modern English, which starts around that time. John M Baker (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Right. The only reason I said 1850 up above is because while I was working on pineapple mania, I found that sources before that time became more difficult to understand. There's also the use and preference of longer words such as "circumabulate" instead of to "walk", etc. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Longer words are also harder to spell correctly.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, at least you know I'm not a bot. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd assume "circumabulate" is attested later than "walk", though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Xtn – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

June 27

Can you help me with the rules of apostrophes?

When writing about a political party that represents workers, would you call it a worker's party or a workers' party? What's the difference between these two? Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The first one is a party for the worker, the second is a party for the workers. I'd probably use the first option on the principle of least astonishment, i.e. I don't want anybody to think about the apostrophe.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Or you could omit it altogether, as in "Socialist Workers Party". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

As a statement about the party's platform, I'd write that the party is a workers' party. See also our article Workers' Party, and a few book titles: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Compare how one would probably use a working men's party.^[10][11][12] But if, in the context, you'd be inclined to use a working man's party (being a party after a working man's own heart, a party preferred by workers), write, gender-neutrally, a worker's party.^[13]

I'm not saying that the other choice is wrong; merely that this is what I'd write, based on the meaning I'm trying to convey.  ​‑‑Lambiam 03:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It could even be described one way and named the other. Discontent among the workers of Boston has led to the development of a worker's party, The Boston Workers' Party. This translation of a letter by Engels does that.  Card Zero  (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Engels used the German compound noun Arbeiterpartei both as a common noun and as part of a proper noun. (Common nouns are capitalized in German just like proper nouns.) Since the singular and plural of German Arbeiter are the same, the compound noun is ambiguous, providing a justification for the different translation of Engels' use of Arbeiterpartei as a common noun.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, so it doesn't correspond to anything in the original German, I did wonder.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

German tends to use the plural, e.g. a women's party would be a Frauenpartei rather than a Fraupartei, (to be honest: there is still ambiguity as the -en in the middle could be considered a filler. like "Liebfrauenkirche" and not "Liebfraukirche" for a church of our lady.). -- 2A02:8424:6281:D401:B4EF:8C10:BD19:AF71 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure on whether the -en-affix-here should be interpreted as a plural marker for the noun, rather than an adjectival marker similar to its usage in "golden" and "wheaten". Cf. wolven and goaten. (I.e. a party pertaining to women.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The interfix -en- of Frauenzimmer is definitively not the plural -en.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

To me, "worker's party" sounds like it's for the benefit of one person. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

An individual worker usually has one favourite party; this party is the worker's party.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Worker of the world, unite! Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Mother's Day and Father's Day are days for all the respective parents, despite taking the singular. DuncanHill (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

But for each celebrant, there is (usually) only one relevant mother and father. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.,230.195] 90.192.251.148 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

June 29

Cayman Islands English

Hello there, I came across the article called Cayman Islands English and when I read there, it says that it is an English variety, just like other Caribbean English dialects. But unlike other varieties, is Cayman Islands English that different from other Caribbean English varieties, like Jamaican English or Bahamian English? 2600:387:F:5719:0:0:0:3 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

How do you quantify "that different"? Obviously there must be some difference or there would be no need to have distinguished this variety in the first place. As a starting point, see the compared versions of a single sentence at Caribbean English#Samples. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The situation on the Cayman Islands is different from, for example, Jamaica. The designations Cayman Islands English and Cayman Creole are synonyms, whereas the range from Jamaican English to Jamaican Creole is spanned by a continuum with no clear delineation between the two, although the extreme ends are different languages (different grammar and different lexicon).  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I suspect this is illusory, reflecting an inadequacy of our article and perhaps a different analytical approach by some scholars: A Google AI overview answer (yes, not reliable) is:

Cayman Islands English:

This is the official language and the language used in formal settings, education, and government. It encompasses a range of dialects spoken throughout the islands, with influences from English, Scottish, and Welsh settlers.

Cayman Islands Creole:

This is a local dialect, or a variety of English, that has developed unique features due to the islands' history and interactions with other languages. It's not a separate language but rather a distinct way of speaking English, influenced by the languages of early settlers, African people, and sailors.

Continuum:

The relationship between standard English and Creole in the Cayman Islands, like in other Caribbean territories, can be seen as a continuum. It's not always a clear-cut distinction between the two, and speakers might shift between different levels of formality and dialect depending on the context.

While this answer cannot be trusted, it seems to me to be more likely to be true(ish) than the assertion that there is only a single variety/creole, rather than there being both with a continuum between them as is the case in most other similar situations. Is there a Caribbean linguist in the House? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

In no language community is there only a single variety of that language. Uncs have a skill issue understanding Gen Alpha speak. Update courses in vernacular English are offered for British expats, native speakers, returning to the UK after a couple of years abroad. Any natural language has a multidimensional continuum of varieties, with, next to regional and generational, also status-based, class-based and gender-based variation.

There is no good definition of when two distinguishable vernaculars become different languages. Nevertheless, linguists agree that Spanish and Portuguese are not different sets of varieties of some Iberian Romance language but (although connected in a continuum) genuinely different languages. Conversely, while European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese have notable differences, there is consensus among linguists that they are sets of varieties of the Portuguese language.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Quoting from the chapter "An annotated list of creoles, pidgins, and mixed languages" of the book Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction:

Template:Tq^[14]

 ​‑‑Lambiam 06:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough: would be a good reference to add to the article. And may I reiterate that the OP seemed to be questioning that Caymans Island English was sufficiently different from "other Caribbean English varieties" to be recognised in its own right? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

July 1

Māori Place Names

I have a few questions about Māori toponymy in New Zealand. In particular about these places: Auckland / Tāmaki Makaurau, Christchurch / Ōtautahi, Hamilton / Kirikiriroa, Napier / Ahuriri, New Plymouth / Ngāmotu, Wellington / Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Westport / Kawatiri.
1) Was there already a Maori village with a Maori name that was later colonized and given a new English name?
2) Was the city / town created by Europeans and was later given a Maori name? In this case when did the usage of the Maori name start to be officially used? Was it already in oral / traditional usage for the city / town or for the general area? thank you! 79.42.126.115 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This might be somewhat prejudiced speculation, but the whole idea of a named town area sounds more colonial than Maori to me. What do the Maori names mean? I guess that some of them might be calques from or phonetic approximations of the English names. Other might be based on some famous natural feature, such as a river, I guess. Natural features and bigger tribes might have names, supposedly. I'm not sure on whether the pre-colonial Maori population would be primarily nomadic or resident, although apparently, there was a widespread tradition of building fortified settlements on impregnable hills. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)