Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Questi sonno e nomi di queli spettabili cittadini stati allo offitio li exeguitori di Cabello Genaio 1479 da finire come segue per sei mesi. E prima Macio D'Antognio di Neri Chamarlengo, misser Iacomo di Benedeto, Nicolo D'Antonio di Guelfo, Francesco Gabrieli, Antonio di Baigio di Guido, Pavolo di Giovani di France di gi 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 language appears to be Italian, but this is from Siena in 1480. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(edit conflict) My Ghanaian friends speak Twi, of which Ashanti is a sub-group. In the Twi dictionary [1] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. I would have thought that my contrasting encyclopedic articles and short stories would have made it clear that I do not agree with this. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Some may derive Pleaſure from ſuch antiquat'd Æſþeticks, but many may not. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Compare how one would probably use a working men's party.^[7][8][9] 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.^[10]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Wakuran It can't be interpreted like that because Frau ist not an adjectiv. That would be fraulich. Your examples are some kind of material, the adjectives in German are similiar, cf. Gold > golden (older: gülden). Some linguists say -en- could be an interfix (Fugenelement) while others think it could also be a plural marker in some cases.

@Lambiam Since today's meaning of Frauenzimmer 'dame' originally is derived from 'women's room' it is possible that -en- could be a plural marker. Frauenzimmer denoted a room for a dame or for women in the 15th century. In the 16th century women, i. e. the court ladys and female servants who lived or worked there, were called Frauenzimmer. Starting from the 17th century onwards, a single woman could be called Frauenzimmer. So the change in meaning looks like this: denoting a women's room (mainly dames) > denoting women who live or work there > denoting a single dame/woman.--92.210.31.114 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wolf" and "goat" are not adjectives either, yet "wolven" and "goaten" are. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Some islands do not possess creole forms of English, but rather 'ordinary' dialects of English. Among these would appear to be the Cayman Islands, and the Bay Islands of Honduras.^[11]

 ​‑‑Lambiam 06:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The comparison of versions of a single sentence at Caribbean English#Samples you referred to above should suffice to show that there is no linguistic unifying basis for the bag of English dialects found in the Carribean. You can roughly split these into two groups, those that use the "verb" deh (varieties of plantation creoles) and the others, which are closer to standard English. The closer they are to standard English, the more Cayman Islands English resembles them.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which function does the verb deh have, and what is its origin? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In creoles with a standardized orthography this may be written as de. In some it is pronounced as /dɛ/, in others as /de/. It serves as a locational and existential verb. Its origin is almost certainly the English adverb there. In some creoles (e.g. Jamaican Patois and Guyanese) it can also be used as an adverb. In Jamaican Patois the combination de de is quite common, where the first de is the verb and the second de is the adverb, together "am/are/is/be there". In Sranantongo it is not used as an adverb but has developed a secondary sense as a progressive marker.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Cayman Islander English or any other Caribbean variants commonly spoken here in USA? 2600:387:F:5719:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 1.000.000 persons of Jamaican heritage in the USA, so presumably various variants of Jamaican English might be fairly common, although code-switching might occur among the population, dependent on if the person spoken to is Jamaican or not. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article goes into many of the questions you asked for the specific case of Ōtautahi / Christchurch: [12]. There were several Māori settlements and place names within what became Christchurch, but Christchurch was not founded by taking over those existing settlements. There can be some disagreement over which (if any) of the existing place names should be used for the modern city. —Amble (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello what does it mean 𠀀𠂇𡈼 𠆢𡃁 𠜎𠜱 𠮷𡅁. ? 176.183.129.225 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those characters are obsolete and not in use in modern Chinese. They don't mean anything cohesive. If anything, I think whoever typed that is testing support for Unicode.

In detail:

• 𠀀 is a variant of the character 一 (meaning "one")
• 𠮷 is an old form of the word 吉 ("lucky") and is commonly used in Japanese surnames
• The others you included, like 𠂇, 𡈼, and 𡃁 are obscure and won't really be seen in daily use. Most of them haven't seen daily use for centuries.

Hope this helps. Gommeh 🎮 14:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of various obscure CJK ideographs makes me think this might be mojibake. -insert valid name here- (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the same random foreign gibberish troll again that we had here a few years ago, just like with the "Chinese" thread above. Let's just roll them back when they post again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an Arabic speaker could advise if this is human gibberish or AI gibberish. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like random-hacking-at-a-keyboard type gibberish to me, given the numerous near-identical repetitions of letter sequences. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, passes the Turing Arabic gibberish test, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC) "I was in Afwica", began Tarquin Maynard Portly. "Don't want to talk gibbewish, but I spent some time in the land of the Gibber, and believe me, those Gibbwoes could get a budgewigar to phone Hawwods."[reply]