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

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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Compare how one would probably use a working men's party.^[6][7][8] 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.^[9]

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.^[10]

 ​‑‑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: [11]. 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]

Posted by the same troll: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics § unsolvable equation.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three geolocate to various parts of France. Maybe they've had too much goat cheese. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. In Finnish, a night between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day is called jouluyö, literally "Christmas night". Is that term also used in English to describe the same thing?
2. In Finnish, 23 December is called jouluaatonaatto, literally "Christmas Eve's Eve". But does English refer to that day any other than "23 December" or "December 23"?
3. In Finnish, a night between New Year's Eve and New Year's Day is called uudenvuodenyö, literally "New Year's night" and the whole period around New Year is called vuodenvaihde, literally "year's change"? Vuodenvaihde is commonly used in expressions like vuodenvaihde 2024-2025, meaning a period covering last days of 2024 and first days of 2025. Also a change from one month to next is named in type [first month (without -kuu)]-[second month], like kesä-heinäkuun vaihde, meaning last days of June and first days of July. Does English know any such expressions?
4. In Finnish, a night that is about to come a few hours' time is referred to as keskiviikkoyö, literally "Wednesday night"? But why English usually refers that as "Tuesday night", despite that most of it falls during Wednesday instead? The current time of the day when I am writing that in Finnish timezone can be referred to as "tiistai-ilta". Does English say "Tuesday evening" for that time (about 22:50)?
5. In Finnish, the transitions from one season to next are referred to as compounds consisting the names of the first and second season. These are kevättalvi, kevätkesä, syyskesä and syystalvi. Does English have similar words? At least Swedish has some similar ones.

--40bus (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. In British English, the 00:00–23:59 period before Christmas Day is called Christmas Eve; the night period until midnight is called Christmas Eve Night if a distinction is required.

2. In British English, no (other than "the day before Christmas Eve").

3. In British English, "New Year's Eve" is the 00:00–23:59 period before New Year's Day. The whole period around New Year is called "New Year". Scottish English may have other special names which a Scottish user might tell us about. There are no specific names for the change from one month to the next.

4. Because it does. Your assertion that most of the night falls within the following day is not necessarily true. "Tuesday evening" in British English refers to the time period after Tuesday afternoon, and becomes "Tuesday night" in the dark period up to midnight.

5. In British English, no. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the phrases "Christmas Eve Eve" and "New Year's Eve Eve" many times in the UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're specifying British English, because terms vary across the anglosphere. When I was getting to know my Sri Lankan-born partner, I was befuddled by his references to "31st night". That's their way of referring to New Year's Eve. He still says that, even though he's now spent almost 65% of his life as an Australian resident and citizen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do English speakers ever refer to period around 23:00 as "evening"? In Finnish, it is called myöhäisilta, iltayö or alkuyö. Does English ever say "late evening"? --40bus (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can come up with sentences where you might refer to 2300 as "evening" that don't sound too weird. "Well, my friends, the evening is coming to a close. Thank you all for coming and we hope to see you again." But it's not exactly usual. I don't see anything wrong with "late evening". --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On question 4, this might be controversial, but for me, if I've been up all day Tuesday, it doesn't become Wednesday just because the clock clicks 12 (or 0). I know it's "technically" Wednesday, but in my thinking it stays Tuesday until I get up for good the next morning. This is a recurring source of confusion between me and my wife, who will refer to things we did "yesterday" that I'm still thinking of as "today". But I'm getting used to it and can figure out what she means. --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are technically incorrect, the worst kind of incorrect. Well, joke's aside, I can mentally understand you. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that it works just fine if you allow non-unique names for times, which of course you should. I could say it's 26 o'clock Tuesday night, and if you insist on calling that "morning" even though it's dark, you can say it's 2 o'clock Wednesday morning, and there's really no conflict, just two different names for the same instant. This could become important in the (very) distant future, if first, we get rid of the idiotic idea of leap seconds, which of course we should, and if they keep the same time system tens of millennia from now, which I see no reason why they ought to. Then you might have the sun setting at, I don't know, 0600 or something, and of course you'll want to keep the same day number for as long as you're awake, so no problem, just say you're going to bed at 34 o'clock and Bob's your uncle. --Trovatore (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Apparently Japanese anime fans regularly watch their nighttime shows to 26.00 and 27.00 or so, and the official programmings have followed suit. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simpler way to do so: just continue shifting to more easterly timezones. For 7 months per year, a number that has been increasing, I'm now in a timezone 1:34 ahead of mean solar time. Some people want summer time the whole year, then we can make a new summer time 2:34 ahead of solar time. In the west of China, official time is already 3:04 ahead of mean solar time (although for slightly different reasons). This has already caused the date change to shift away from the time when most people are asleep. The only thing you need are lawmakers who try to make people get up earlier than their natural rhythm; lawmakers who like to get up earlier than non-lawmakers. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that's "simpler". Frankly I'd prefer to do away with time zones and have a single time coordinate for the whole planet, so people stop attaching so much significance to particular nominal times, and just adjust their schedules to the Sun in the way that best suits them. Call it "free market time". --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

2. This might be partly due to the Nordic Countries having their main celebration on the 24th and Anglosaxon countries having it on the 25th, I guess. (Although the double eves aren't commonly encountered outside Finland.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Eve Eve is celebrated as Festivus, though there might be a Hesperus is Phosphorus issue lurking in here somewhere. --Trovatore (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]