Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 March 7

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< March 6 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 8 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


March 7

edit

What do the letters Dx - of diagnosis- stand for?

edit

I always see the letters Dx as the abbreviation of diagnosis, but I never understand and I wander how does this letter relate to the word diagnosis which doesn't contain the letter x. Therefore my question is What do these two letters (Dx) stand for? (BTW this phenomenon very common in medical abbreviations, such as: Fx for fracture, Hx for history, Sx for symptoms etc.) Is there a clear answer for that topic, because after googling I got more confusion...) 93.126.95.68 (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "x" stands for anything, it's just an indication that this is an abbreviation. Note the common medical abbreviation "Rx" which stands for "recipe", Latin imperative for "take". Medieval medical prescriptions (and later cooking recipes) normally began with the word "Take" (eg. "Take one eye of newt ... ") and this became the word for a prescription itself. I believe I've read, though can't find a citation, that this initial word "recipe", being expected, was abbreviated to just an "R", sometimes with a small extra line crossing the diagonal stroke. This crossed line evolved into an "x". Perhaps, but this is just a guess, this use of Rx as an abbreviation influenced the use of "x" to indicate other medical abbreviations. Mnudelman (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically right -- the 'x' is really more like punctuation, a bit like the period normally used to mark abbreviations, but much easier to see in medical records, and difficult to confuse with ordinary words or regular abbreviations. Another one is Px used for 'patient'. Peter Grey (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As to "normally used", see the discussion a few questions back. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient/Medieval writing was often abbreviated and meaning often depends entirely on context. You'd know what an R with a slash in it meant in a medical text, because that was just what it meant, but in another context it could mean something else (a similar looking squiggle could abbreviate the genitive plural). Now it's turned into an "Rx" but that's not originally what it was. There are lots of other abbreviations like that in modern English, even more than the ones you mentioned, like Tx for treatment, for one. In French they use them too, and Rx could mean either prescription or X-ray, or Cx could mean surgery or cervical. It can be pretty confusing. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Award ceremony or awards ceremony?

edit

Which is correct? Award ceremony ... or awards ceremony ... or award's ceremony? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on whether one award was being presented, or more than one. But definitely no apostrophe.--Shantavira|feed me 07:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Things like the Emmy's, Oscar's, etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except not. It's Emmys, Oscars, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You don't need an apostrophe for those either; "Oscars" is correct. See The Greengrocer’s Apostrophe. Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's a possessive, as in "the Oscar's surface gleamed in the bright lights of the after-party." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To directly answer the question, our article, Academy Awards has "awards ceremony" which I believe is correct. As User:Shantavira says above, it depends whether it's a ceremony for one award ("award ceremony") or a ceremony for several awards ("awards ceremony"). Alansplodge (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So for something like the Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, and Tonys, etc., we would use "awards ceremony", plural. If they only give out one award -- say, the Heisman Trophy -- that would be an "award" (singular) ceremony. Is this correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Shantavira and Alansplodge have made this very clear. Yes. Your understanding is correct. Yes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that "award ceremony" and "awards ceremony" sound almost identical. Kind of like the baseball World Series, which at one time was called the "World's Series". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De Ruyt way to capitalize the admiral's name?

edit

The "de" in Michiel de Ruyter's full name is not capitalized, yet everywhere I look, when he is referred to by last name in the middle of a sentence, it's capitalized "De Ruyter". What the heck is going on here? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard practice for names in the Netherlands. If a surname starts with words like "de", "van" etc. those are only capitalized when not immediately preceded by a first name or initials, see Tussenvoegsel. - Lindert (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Additionally, the 'de' isn't taken into account in alphabetical indices, so it would be 'Ruyter, de', under R. Fgf10 (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So how would Michiel de Ruyter be alphabetized—as Ruyter, de, Michiel or as Ruyter, Michiel de ? Loraof (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be sorted under "Ruyter". StuRat (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The latter. For an example of an alphabetical list of names as used in the Netherlands, see the list of members of the Dutch House of Representatives. Nevertheless, "de" is really part of the family name, not the given name. - Lindert (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be "neverdeless"? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this style of sorting is only used in the Netherlands but not in Belgium or in English-language lists. Rmhermen (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Dutch (or any other language's) orthographic conventions should not be used to inform how English Wikipedia writes its articles. For example, if we agree the subject's name is correctly spelt Michiel de Ruyter, and this is the title of his article, then the only time 'de' becomes 'De' is at the start of a sentence. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, nuts. Now I have to go and redo the corrections I undid. Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His name is Michiel de Ruyter in full, De Ruyter without first name or initials. Simple as. What language you write in is entirely irrelevant. You did fine, Clarity, don't undo your correct changes. Saying the native orthography doesn't matter is ludicrous. Fgf10 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to discuss this, User:Fgf10. Why do Dutch rules apply in English contexts? Doesn't this mean that English writers need to be aware of the conventions of many other languages, and isn't that an unreasonable requirement? If one had a bunch of names such as Michiel de Ruyter (Dutch), Giuseppe de Rinaldi (Italian), Charles de Gaulle (French) and Arnold de Beer (Belgian), and was referring to them by surname alone, under your proposal wouldn't they appear as "de <name>" in some cases and just "<name>" in others, and wouldn't this be confusing for both writer and reader? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't need to be aware, I would not expect this. But in a case like this, where the question has been asked, and the answer categorically given, there is no reason not to use appropriate conventions. And no, the name would always have the 'de' preceding it, unless it is in an index. Do read what people write before you comment. Fgf10 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do be civil.
... there is no reason not to use appropriate conventions - I have already given reasons; the general lack of knowledge of foreign conventions. Just as English readers cannot be assumed to know how diacritics and non-English letters such as ä, ĉ, ð, ł, ň, ø, ř, ş, û, ÿ, ź etc etc should be pronounced. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do read and don't selectively quote. I clearly said I would certainly not expect people to know conventions. Hence why the question was asked here, and answered here. We can act accordingly. That's the beauty of wiki, if you don't know, you can ask, and someone else will know. Anyway, so by your reasoning we shouldn't use letters like ä, ĉ, ð, ł, ň, ø, ř, ş, û, ÿ or ź, even when they are part of names etc? I bet you still call Beijing Peking. Fgf10 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You lose. I can think of many German nouns that are often used in English but are not generally capitalised, as would automatically be required in German contexts. For starters:
  • abseil, autobahn, dachshund, gestalt, gesundheit, glockenspiel, hinterland, kindergarten, kitsch, kohlrabi, lager, leitmotif, pilsener, poltergeist, pretzel, pumpernickel, rucksack, sauerkraut, schnapps, spiel, strudel, wanderlust, wurst.
Why is this the case, if we're supposed to be adopting the conventions of the source language? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Loanwords. Very different from what's discussed here. Fgf10 (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, English language publications generally honor foreign conventions in this regard. E.g., Manuel de Falla is routinely alphabetized under "F", not "D". But obviously, without an Academy to settle such questions, there will be variation. added: And the familiarity of name to the audience (De Gaulle) will also influence the decision. -- Elphion (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liens

edit

This is about liens. I checked the Wikipedia article, but I did not see the pertinent information there. Unless I missed it. The entity that holds the lien on the property is called the lien-holder or the lienor. Those two words are synonyms. Correct? And what is the antonym? What is the word for the person against whom the lien is held? Not "lienee", I hope? What is it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site says "lienee". Mirriam Webster agrees, as does Black's Law Dictionary. Also, referenced in the Wikipedia article titled Lien which you already linked, ALSO states "lienee". --Jayron32 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it in the article? I didn't see this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the page and use your browser's edit/find feature, to search for those words. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in sentence 2 of the lead. Loraof (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No idea how I missed that? I read the intro several times. Sorry. And thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The big Oxford English Dictionary recognises "lien holder" as British, and "lienor" as American (since 1890), but doesn't mention "lienee". Perhaps this is because it hasn't yet had that entry updated to the Third Edition. Dbfirs 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This "lienee" word seems odd. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a common term in UK law - it only occurs eleven times in the entire BAILII database, which covers most UK law reports since about 1800. It's also used in the opposite sense to that given above - the "lienor" is the owner of the property, the "lienee" is the person who has possession of it and is exercising the lien. This is consistent with the much more common terms "bailor" and "bailee" - the bailor owns the goods, the bailee has possession. Tevildo (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Lien" is not a rare word in English law, it appears 826 times in Halsbury's. I suspect BAILII just suffers from recentism.
The problem with "lienor" and "lienee" as opposed to "bailor" and "bailee" is that "bail" is the verb, "bailment" the noun. We say "bailor/bailee", not "bailmentor/bailmentee". Similarly, we say "testator", not "willor". "Lien" is generally used as a noun, not a verb, which is I think why "lienor" and "lienee" sound strange. That's why I think "lien holder" or "lien claimant" will sound much more natural than "lienor". As to "lienee", liens usually arise and are held or claimed, they do not tend to be intentionally granted, so I can see why they would occur less in writing.
That said, both "lienor" and "lienee" appear in Halsbury's, five times each, so both are valid legal English words. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2016_March_7&oldid=1074626987"