What does "act some trades" mean in the following sentence (published in "one of the London daily journals" in 1847)?

“	Incredible as it may appear, a person will attend at the Monument, and will, for the sum of £2,500, undertake to jump off the said Monument, and in coming down will drink some beer and eat a cake, act some trades, shorten and make sail, and bring ship safe to anchor.	”
— quoted in Charles Welch, History of the Monument (1921).

Needless to say, this feat was not accomplished, but I'd be interested to know what the person intended to do. Tevildo (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some definitions of "trade". Two possibilities that come to mind are 1b: " archaic : a track or trail left by a person or animal :" or 3b: "an occupation requiring manual or mechanical skill :" That is, either they are going to make a track or trail; or perform some craft or artisanship. Both would be equally as ridiculous as drinking a beer on the way down. I can't find any other definition which fits the context. Perhaps someone with full OED access may find a better fit. --Jayron32 17:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take "in coming down" to mean "while coming down", but rather "after coming down". It sounds like some type of a package deal for tourists, so the jump is presumably done safely, from a limited height into a net, for example. In the context of a package deal, pretending to perform tradesmans' crafts might fit in, like laying a brick or two and some mortar. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an invitation to tourists, but an advertisement for a burlesque show. [1]. That is, someone was offering to perform a stunt and charging admission to watch him do it. --Jayron32 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like how in the previous paragraph, it says that this monument to the Great London Fire was "illuminated with portable gas". Hoping to find a reason to build another monument, perhaps ? StuRat (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Something tells me it means doing impressions. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise in sailing, but even I know what Trade winds are. See also Winds in the Age of Sail. The whole thing reads as a stunt done for a fee or bet of £2,500 by a person jumping off a monument while consuming beer and cake. It seems he uses a cape or parachute device. "[A]ct some trades" seems to be a humorous euphemism for setting the cape for maximum performance into the wind, "shorten and make sail" for gliding maximum distance, and "bring ship safe to anchor" for making a successful, safe landing. No doubt "act some trades" was perfectly understandable to readers of the 1847 journal. Akld guy (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a plausible answer, but "act" in this sense doesn't appear in this fairly comprehensive glossary of nautical terms (Smyth & Belcher, 1867) or any other on-line resource I can find immediately. Perhaps "do whatever is necessary to deploy the parachute" might be a possible reading? Tevildo (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the stunt involved an early type of parachute is possible, since in July of the same year, a balloon ascent at Vauxhall Gardens (also in London), included dropping a "a parachute containing a live animal". [2] Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over men and horses, hoops and garters, lastly through a hogshead of real fire. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely speculating here, but could "act some trades" mean "execute some transactions in stock or commodities"? The whole thing sounds like a list of plainly impossible feats, in the tall tales tradition, and so one of them is that the jumper will somehow contact his broker and arrange to buy or sell or perhaps perform more elaborate options or futures trading, before reaching the ground. --Trovatore (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compare The Motorcycle Song (Significance of the Pickle) by the brilliant Arlo Guthrie. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"Act" could be an abbreviation for 'enact'. Akld guy (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for "act some trades" found only this sentence, which has been quoted several times over the years. (It is said to be from the Times of August 22, 1827, although a cursory search of The Times on that date did not find the passage.) The sentence is understood to be joking in nature, and it is not supposed that these are things it would be possible to do while jumping off a monument. Since "act some trades" is a hapax legomenon, but all the other things listed are at least things meaningfully described, the phrase must be a mistake for something else. I incline to the view that Trovatore is correct, and "transact some trades" (in stocks, bonds, or bills of exchange) is what is intended. John M Baker (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read through The Times of 22 August 1827 but didn't encounter the phrase "act some trades" either. However, I did spot this obituary notice on page 3:

DIED On Sunday, the 19th last, Frederick, the infant son of Thomas Windus, Esq., Stamford-hill.

There is a Windus Road and a Windus Walk in Stamford Hill. Thomas Windus was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, but I suspect the reason for his commemoration is that he lived at Gothic Hall (where Barclays Bank now is). In the City, a large area of land was owned by the Duke of Buckingham, and when it was developed the streets were named after all possible combinations of his name, including "Of Alley". Are there any other examples of such a comprehensive remembrance? 86.151.51.82 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British Newspaper Archive also furnishes no original source for this advertisement. The 21 June 1891 edition of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper reproduces the above text, and the same claim about the date of the original publication, and follows it up with the observation that 'Needless to say, such a performance is not on record'. However, I think that describing it as a 'burlesque advertisement' (as Lloyd's does) is not saying that it is an advertisement for a burlesque performance, but rather that it is a burlesque, that is a parody, of more serious advertisements. The fundraising method described is subscription, a form of crowdfunding popular in the era - but the target sum suggested would be more fitting for a new edition of a book than a one-off circus act. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "List of most visited museums in..." or "List of most-visited museums in..."?

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most style guides (U.S. ones, at least) would favor the hyphen. When an adverb ending in -ly precedes an adjective or participle ("rarely visited museums"), no hyphen is used, but combinations with adverbs not ending in -ly are usually hyphenated to prevent misreading. See #3 in MOS:HYPHEN for Wikipedia guidance. Deor (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (UK logic too), use of the hyphen avoids the possible ambiguity. The list presumably contains the museums that are most frequently visited, not most of the museums that are visited sometimes. Dbfirs 07:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-posted at-Village-Pump here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Disambiguating hypens needed

Thanks all for the-input. I'm really getting-the-hang of hyphen-usage now. I think I've-nailed it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the article Chronovisor:

the existence (much less the functionality) of the chronovisor has never been confirmed

I think there's a double negative here – if not grammatically, at least logically – because the verb negated with never applies for both subjects. If written out in full, the sentence would read:

the existence of the chronovisor has never been confirmed, much less has the functionality of the chronovisor never been confirmed

I think the bolded parts cancel each other logically. Even in my language, which allows double (and triple, quadruple, etc) grammatical negatives, such a statement would seem self-contradictory.

What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When taken literally, it seems to be an example of exaggeration, not a double negative, by saying that confirmation of the functionality has occurred "less than never". But "much less" has come to mean "or"/"nor", in common use, so I would read it that way. I would rewrite it as "Neither the existence nor functionality has ever been confirmed". StuRat (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an incorrect use of "much less" - but not a double negative. The essence of a double negative is that the two negatives effectively cancel each other out: it is perfectly legitimate to use two negatives when the second one serves to reinforce the first one. However, there is no point trying to indicate that the functionality of something is even more questionable than its existence if you cannot find any proof of existence. If it doesn't exist, then of course it doesn't function. Wymspen (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a perfectly ordinary use of the idiom "much less" to me. You might want to check out Wiktionary's entries on "much less" and similar phrases: much less, not to mention, to say nothing of, let alone. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like poor sentence construction to me. In fact it's so bad it's hard to understand. I think it means this (which would be a better construction): "the existence, let alone the functionality, of the chronovisor has never been confirmed." Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to short-circuit this discussion, I've gone ahead and changed "much less" to "let alone" in the article, as a less awkward construction. Deor (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is very often the right thing to do, much less even in otherwise better-formed sentences. —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP's analysis showing that it's an illogical double negative. Akid guy's alternative is good, as is "the existence, or even the functionality, of the chronovisor has never been confirmed." Loraof (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

or even doesn't work there, because existence is logically prior to functionality. —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what someone was trying, and failing, to say is: "Not even the existence of the chronovisor has ever been confirmed, let alone its functionality". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original sentence seemed perfectly clear to this native, but then there ain't nothing wrong with double negatives. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no double negative in the original sentence. "Much less" is not a negative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I couldn't be bothered to explain that to the sort of idiots who think that there is anything wrong with double negatives in English. DuncanHill (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a double negative, except when it's mistakenly being used in place of a single negative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't never nothing wrong with no double negatives. I defy any native ever to misunderstand that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has spent any time on the beaches of Southern California will be familiar with the little blue lifeguard boxes that dot the shoreline. There may be some variation, but the ones in Venice at least all seem to be stenciled with a warning, in English and Spanish, that there is no lifeguard on duty (now that I think about it, I'm not sure what they do with it when there is a lifeguard on duty).

Anyway, the Spanish version says NO HAY SALVAVIDAS TRABAJANDO.

Now, my Spanish is not very good, but I think that's just a flat grammatical error, isn't it? You can't use the gerund that way, at least not in Italian, which is usually pretty close to Spanish in these things.

Italian does have a just-barely-productive present participle, which Spanish does not, so I suppose in Italian you could just barely say non ci sono guardaspiaggia lavoranti, if you didn't mind people looking at you funny. But you absolutely can't say *non ci sono guardaspiaggia lavorando. That would mean something like "when you're working, there are no lifeguards", if it were grammatical at all, which it really isn't. Instead, you should say non ci sono guardaspiaggia al lavoro.

So I think the Spanish version should be NO HAY SALVAVIDAS AL TRABAJO. Or not? --Trovatore (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the grammar, but the sign seems to be on a wooden shutter that would be taken down (or hinged forward) when the hut is in use. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Spanish, particularly journalistic, legalistic, bureaucratic and administrative Spanish, does occasionally use the gerund as an adjective, although this use is incorrect, strictly speaking (except in rare cases where it has been lexicalized, such as "aqua hirviendo", "clave ardiendo", or "rubio tirando a amarillo"). See es:Gerundio#Gerundio_como_adjetivo for example, and Aproximación al estudio del gerundio en español e italiano: la expresión oral by Hugo E. Lombardini and Enriqueta Pérez Vázquez, who state that this (non-normative) form of adjectival gerund is used in spoken Spanish too, but not in spoken Italian. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No estan salvavidas de guardia. "There aren't (any) lifeguards on duty." ("Estar de guardia" means on duty; that the word for "duty" is guardia is just a coincidence here.)

The best you could do with trabajar would be "No trabajan salvavidas" which would mean there might be some present, but if so, they aren't going to rescue anyone. Or "Las salvavidas no trabajan" which Literally means "The lifeguards don't work", which is a quite odd thing to say as well. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider NO HAY SALVAVIDAS TRABAJANDO to be Spanglish. Some Spanish-speakers who are born and raised in the U.S. probably do say this, but it looks bad to me. Besides wikt:salvavidas, you can also use wikt:guardavidas or wikt:socorrista, but the usual way to write this phrase would be: no hay salvavidas de turno, or no hay ningún salvavidas. —Stephen (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I gave my informant the original which was on the beach sign and was met with laughter. I didn't give my example and was told Los salvavidas no estan de guardia was a better alternative. I would interpret no hay ningún salvavidas to mean this beach has no lifeguards at all, not that they are off duty (not working) at this hour. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no hay ningún salvavidas is singular, which you can tell from the word ningún. So a literal translation would be there is no lifeguard, which would be accurate. When a lifeguard comes on duty, he takes the sign down. —Stephen (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if the sign were plural ("there are no lifeguards") that somehow intimates to a would - be bather that they should not bother waiting around for one to show up because the beach is not serviced, and if singular it doesn't? 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:1A5:5029:129D:58 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "no lifeguards" does sound like a permanent situation, whereas "no lifeguard" could be temporary or permanent. For this phrase, English benefits from saying "on duty", and almost seems to require it, whereas Spanish really does not need it. It's okay to add "de turno" to the Spanish, but I think it suggests English influence. —Stephen (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a certified interpreter. But as I myself apprehend it, while the gerund in English constitutes a homograph of the infinitive, the two remain completely distinct in the other Latin-based tongues (modern Greek and the various, Romance Languages).

Namely, in Spanish one would use the present participle when saying "Le vi corriendo por la calle `I saw him running down the street`."

But he would use the gerund when saying "¡Su correr por la casa me enoja! `His running in the house annoys me!`."

(Please note the use of the genitive pronoun.) Pine (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's completely incorrect. In English, the gerund has the same form as the present participle (the -ing form). "Living" used as a noun (e.g. "living is easy") is the gerund; in "the living God", you're using it as the present participle. For the present progressive tense, "I am living", it's sort of hard to tell; to me this seems more like a participial use, but I think it's more common to call it a gerund.

Your corriendo is in fact a gerund, not a present participle. The present participle, if it existed, would be corriente, I think, but the present participle is no longer productive in Spanish; it's limited to a few fixed forms. It is productive in Italian, but just barely (it's not used very much outside of fixed forms).

Your correr is not a gerund at all. It's a nominalized infinitive. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who responded! Alan, good find on the photo.

Sluzzelin, that's interesting; that's the only piece of evidence contrary to the narrative that whoever made the stencil just made a silly Anglophone error. It actually does seem possible that, if there's a disapproved style that's favored by bureaucrats, well, bureaucrats just might use it in translation as well :-).

Medeis, too much good stuff there to address briefly. I wish my intuitions in Italian were still trustworthy enough to figure out what you would really say. I think al lavoro works but I could be wrong. I toyed with in carica, but that sounds like they have sufficient electric charge, or all'incarico or d'incarico, but those sound like you elect lifeguards and they're currently in office.

Stephen, thanks for pointing out that salvavidas is (also) singular. I was thinking of it as necessarily plural, another Anglophone-inspired error. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were employed by the Coastguard, I would put up a sign on the lines of Esta praia não é vigiado por salva - vidas if that was indeed the case. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The proper an=swer is Nade a su propio riesgo. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know whether he likes baseball, nor do I know whether he likes basketball (i.e. I don't know whether he likes baseball. I don't know whether he likes basketball either).
2. I know he doesn't like baseball, nor - I know - does he like basketball (i.e. I know he doesn't like baseball. I know he doesn't like basketball either).

I guess #1 is grammatical. If #2 is ungrammatical, then how can I rephrase it - using " nor " - and without giving up the second " I know " (just as #1 doesn't have to give up the second " I know ")?

141.226.218.104 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use "nor" without introducing a double negative. The construction you want is "I know he doesn't like baseball or basketball". 78.145.17.85 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your proposal " I know he doesn't like baseball or basketball ": It does not use " nor ", so it's not what I'm looking for.

I can't figure out your comment about the double negative. Please notice, that just as my first sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things I don't know, so my second sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things he doesn't like. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that nor is used when you have two negative things - so in the first sentence there are two things that you don't know. In the second sentence you are joining two positives - two things that you do know (even though what you know appears negative): the conjunction has to be "and".

1. I know he doesn't like baseball, and I know he doesn't like basketball either.
2. I know he doesn't like baseball, and I know he also doesn't like basketball.
3. I know he doesn't like either baseball or basketball. Wymspen (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposals do not contain " nor ", so they can't be what I'm looking for.

I can't figure out why my first sentence can use " nor ", while my second sentence cannot. Please notice, that just as my first sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things I don't know, so my second sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things he doesn't like, so the distinction you make between both sentences in terms of the two negative things - seems to be very artificial - because it refers to the incidental content of each sentence whereas my question is about grammar rather than about content. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about "I know he likes neither baseball nor basketball"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't want to give up the second " I know " in the second sentence, just as I don't have to give up the second " I know " in the first sentence. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using any verb (e.g. "I know") - twice - with "nor", is only possible in sentences where that verb is negated twice. Therefore, you cannot use the verb "I know" twice - in the second sentence, because the "I know" is not negated in the second sentence. HOTmag (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "nor" is rather formal, and discussing which sports somebody likes is rather informal, so the two really don't go together. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfoirtunately, what you want is not grammatically possible. Your second sentence has two positives - "I know ...." and "I know ...." and you cannot put a "nor" between two positives. The fact that what you know is something negative makes no difference: knowing that someone doesn't like something remains a positive statement. The main verb is positive. Wymspen (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. "He doesn't like baseball, nor does he like basketball" would be fine, but the sentence isn't primarily - grammatically speaking - about what HE does or does not like, it's about what YOU DO know. If it were about what you do NOT know, then there'd be a case for using "nor". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the second sentence clunky but valid. —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email from a company that starts off with:

Congratulations, Pizza!

And ends with:

Best,
The Foobar Recruiting Team

Now I'm writing a reply back to them. Normally in professional communications I use "To whom it may concern" when I don't know the recipient's name and gender, but in this case it feels slightly too uptight and formal. Would it be acceptable to use the salutation "Dear Foobar Recruiting Team" in this case? Or would that be seen as unprofessional? Pizza Margherita (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that degree of formality ("To whom it may concern") is seen as stuffy and old-fashioned now, while "Dear" should only be used with loved ones. Something like "Valued customer" or just your name would be more common now. Or you can skip the salutation entirely, since the email address already makes it clear who it's addressed to. In a mass email, this might make sense, if no one greeting applies to everyone it was sent to. Better than "Customers, suppliers, and employees," in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick input! Much appreciated. Pizza Margherita (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to read that "Dear" should only be used with loved ones. "Dear" is the default opening of a letter, and affection could be expressed by starting off "My dear ..." etc. (though not in this example, obviously). 78.145.17.85 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At one point this was true, but I would find a stranger addressing me as "Dear" to be inappropriate, as would many. It's about like at a diner where the waitress calls everyone "Hon". StuRat (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. --Viennese Waltz 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "Dear So-and-so . . . " is still standard in formal and business correspondence, unless and until the two co-respondents are sufficiently familiar with each other to substitute something more casual. Starting with "Mr So-and-so . . ." or "Sir . . ." would imply a degree of annoyance or coldness (which might be appropriate in some circumstances, such as a dispute). However, letters to newspapers or journals intended for publication do conventionally start "Sir . . ."{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the London insurance market, the general form when writing to a company was "Dear Sirs..." followed at the end by "yours faithfully". If you knew who you were writing to, the letter would be headed "For the attention of Mr Joseph Bloggs" but still commenced with "Dear Sirs". I don't know if this formality has fallen by the wayside in the decade or so since my departure, especially now that there are a lot more female "Sirs". Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The warmth of a letter used to be expressed by the subscription. If you started off "Dear Sir" you would end "Yours faithfully". In days gone by you might sign off with "I remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant". You could add kisses in personal correspondence but of course on the internet you have a whole toolkit of emojis. A solicitor will end a letter to his client "Yours sincerely". When writing to the other side he will finish "Yours faithfully" (the very thing which he is not). Continentals are more deferential. The French monsieur means "my lord". A Portuguese business letter would end

De V. Ex^ia(s) atentamente

and may still do so. The contraction is of Vossa Excelência, lit. "Your Excellency". In the form você it is in conversational use in Brazil. Government letters ended (and may still end) with the formula

A bem da nação (the good of the nation).

It is possible this dates back to the establishment of the Republic in 1917(?)

"Dear Sir or Madam" solves the problem when you do not know the sex of the person you are writing to, and "Dear Miss ..." if you don’t know the marital status. "Ms" strikes me as a sloppy construction, and "Mx" is even worse. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule used to be that if it was addressed to a named person, it would start "Dear [name including titles as appropriate]" and end "Yours sincerely"; but if it was "Dear Sir/s" etc, it would end "Yours faithfully". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ask this because in the media I'm seeing fewer and fewer uses of it by itself, and more and more instances of "could possibly", "could perhaps", "could potentially", "could theoretically" and similar.

Hasn't "could" always included the sense of these other words? Or is there occurring some fundamental change in its meaning? Or is this just journalistic over-dramatisation/padding? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The modifier "theoretically" seems to imply "not practically", as in "due to quantum fluctuations the Earth could theoretically wink out of existence". So it really means "couldn't". StuRat (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three adverbs are intended to cast more doubt than could possibly be conveyed by "could"' alone. Loraof (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)All those variations seem to imply significantly less than 50/50 odds. If you say "could" by itself, to me it sounds more like 50/50. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ... you could win the lottery, but the odds are certainly not "more like 50/50". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could you possibly win the lottery? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By purchasing the winning ticket? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask them to sell you a winning ticket, but they refuse to guarantee it, so I don't bother to buy them. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, lotteries being what they are the way to win (or at least not lose) is not to participate. Their advertising is fairly unimaginative - the pools companies say "you've got to be in it to win it" and the National Lottery's slogan is "Play makes it possible". 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:1A5:5029:129D:58 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those statements are literally true. If you don't have a ticket, you cannot possibly win anything. If you do have a ticket, you now have a possibility of winning - a very low possibility, but any positive number, no matter how low, is infinitely better than zero. Being in the game is infinitely better than not being in the game, from the point of view of winning money. And I'm glad you modified your opening statement, because without that amendment, it wasn't about winning at all. Winning money and not losing money on risky gambles are completely different things. The former absolutely requires a monetary investment; the latter, for certainty, absolutely requires that NO monetary investment be made. You can't get anything more different than those two things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where his dog, Dogbert, was selling "Half priced, day-old lottery tickets". The customer complained that there was no chance of winning, since presumably any winning tickets would not be sold. Dogbert replied that they are still a better deal, since at 50 cents each, you only lose 50 cents per purchase, while a $1 new lottery ticket only pays off 10 cents, on average, so you lose 90 cents there. The customer then says "Wow, if they're such a great deal, give me two !". StuRat (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

When an advertiser says you "could" win something, they are being extremely optimistic. If they tell you there's a zillion-to-one chance against winning, they won't sell many tickets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Could possibly," "could perhaps," "could theoretically," "might probably," "might likely," and others all strike my as redundancies. Viz., while the writer clearly intends to emphasize the modal verb with an adverb, he actually ends up doing the exact opposite: he makes the reader's eyes glaze over.  :)

In my personal writing style, I strictly avoid adverbs that share a similar meaning the modal verbs that they modify.

ee.gg., I'll say "As bad as it could ever get." "I cannot in any way agree with this," or "Could this somehow get any weirder?" Pine (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if you say "this could probably be dealt with in another forum" you're saying that it is more likely that someone else could deal with it than if you had said "this could possibly be dealt with in another forum". 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:80C8:5D47:A323:DCDC (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most languages, English still preserves the distinction between "can" and "may." Thus, I'd say "This might be better addressed in another forum" for the former intended meaning, and "this could be answered more properly in another forum" for the latter.

(I apologize for rewriting your examples, but I really don't like putting "with" at the end of a clause.)

:)

Pine (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This general subject reminds me of this observation from the story of Tweedledum and Tweedledee: "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of "might" and "could" occurs at about 12:15 of this clip:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As IP 2A02 implies above, 'could' is a little ambiguous when the subject is thought more likely than not likely. "A solution could possibly be found on another forum" versus "A solution could probably be found on another forum". Therefore, I don't think the 'possibly' (or the 'probably') are redundant. They simply more accurately describe the likelihood of the 'could' and are adjuncts to it. Akld guy (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different wording can give different assumptions both based on the reader and the context. I sometimes use the redundant "may or may not" when I have no idea of the likelihood. I guess readers are less likely to make assumptions about likelihood from that formulation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above has reminded me of something - whenever I write, e.g. "let us know whether the thing will happen" in a letter, my boss corrects it to "whether or not the thing will happen". Is this actually necessary, or just redundancy? (The redundancy in this case is somewhat justified, as many of the letters go to people with English as a second language.) MChesterMC (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both ways are correct and mean the same thing. I think the usage with "whether" only is formal, and with "or not" is more colloquial. There are some cases that require adding "or not", such as "whether or not you meant it, you are responsible". —Stephen (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There could the a difference in meaning: "Please let us know whether you are accepted" could mean to only notify them if you receive an acceptance letter, although I would replace "whether" with "if", in such a case, to remove all ambiguity. "Please let us know whether or not you are accepted" means they want to be notified if you receive an acceptance or rejection letter. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously they aren't synonymous. If they were, then replacing one with the other, as I suggested, wouldn't clarify the meaning, it would have the exact same meaning. Also note that words can by interchangeable in some situations, but not others. The common (although not technically correct) phrase "ten items or less" is interchangeable with "ten items or fewer", but "I have less coffee than you" is in no way interchangeable with "I have fewer coffee than you". StuRat (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 81 leveling the insult is a sock of a banned user, as his block log shows. And now has another feather in his blocked head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Read this or this or this. --Jayron32 16:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Few verbs in modern English cause as much consternation as to have to. Once upon a time, the (now obsolete) mote stood as the present tense and must as the past tense. Now, however, must serves as the present indicative, and one substitutes some sort of periphrase for all the other tenses.

The confusion of "must" with "need" also compounds the problem, particularly when using an adverb of degree. To wit, constructions such as "I must not enter that area" or "I must hardly adjust the settings, or the computer will crash." imply degrees of obligation; whereas sentences such as "I need not enter that area" or "I need hardly adjust the settings to get the effect that we want" actually indicate degrees of necessity.

When it comes to the future and conditional tenses of must, though, this utterly bewilders me. Which, in your humble opinions, sounds the most proper when suggesting degrees of obligation?

ee.gg.

"I shall have not to enter that area?" "I shall not have to enter that area?" something else?

Or, would someone simply rewrite the sentence entirely by using a copulative tense?

ee.gg.

"I shall be obligated not to enter that area?" "I shall be prohibited from entering that area?" something else, yet?

Thank you. Pine (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my (British English, just in case it matters) reading, "I shall have not to" would mean "I shall be obligated not to" (i.e. "I am prohibited"), while "I shall not have to" would mean "I shall not be obligated to (but could if I wished, since I am neither obligated nor prohibited)". That said, "I shall have not to" sounds incredibly clunky to my ear, in a way that your last two examples don't, so I would go with one of those if that is the intended meaning. MChesterMC (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. "I shall not have to" is necessity rather than obligation, and "I shall be prohibited" is the best of the four. One could say "I shall have to not enter" to express (negative) obligation, but it's still an unnatural construction. Incidentally, if you insist on pluralizing "e.g.", it should be "ee.g." (exemplōrum gratiā instead of exemplī gratiā) - we have two examples, but still only two words and one benefit. Tevildo (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "esteemed" would be better than "humble" in this context. Tevildo (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear foreign colleagues. There is a problem with correct pronunciation of a geographic name, Rodrigo de Freitas, which is a lagoon in Rio-de-Janeiro. As you know, the Brazilian pronunciation differs from European Portuguese one. Maybe, someone can write the transcription of the Brazilian pronunciation with the IPA?

I would request in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but there the language reference page is out.

Thank you in advance.

--В.Галушко (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/ʁo.ˈdɾi.ɡu d͡ʒɪ ˈfɾej.tɐʃ/ —Stephen (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen G. Brown: Thank you. Is that the Brazilian pronunciation? I read allegedly the Brazilians pronounce the final "s" as "s", meanwhile the Portuguese read it as "sh".

--В.Галушко (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s Brazilian. However, Brazil has different dialects or accents. For example, the word "de" in Rio is /d͡ʒɪ/, but in South Brazil /de/, Central northeastern dialect /di/, and Caipira dialect /di/.

/ʁo.ˈdɾi.ɡu d͡ʒɪ ˈfɾej.tɐʃ/ is what they say in Rio, with -ʃ. In São Paulo, it would end in -s. See this Youtube video, at 17s the speaker in Rio says Rodrigo de Freitas with /ʃ/. —Stephen (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this suffix mean? It seems abundant -- Oerlikon, Pfäffikon, Wiedikon, Zollikon, to name just a few. --212.203.65.210 (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a variation on the German ending -inghofen, itself the dative case of -ing, added to a (sur)name and denoting affiliation with a group or tribe, and hof, a settlement. So Oerlikon is "the settlement of Orilo’s people". Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 07:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense! However, I don't know of any place names in Germany which end in -inghofen, or even in -hofen. Is this suffix unique to the Swiss toponymy? (The article on Eindhoven says its name isn't related to the German -hofen.) --31.10.154.84 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I believe that would be the exact Dutch cognate (Hof and variants have a certain bandwidth of meanings, somewhat like court and/or yard in English). Off the top of my head, I can think of several places named Pfaffenhofen in Germany, also Dudenhofen. There are more, I just haven’t found a good way to google for them, but see also the places marked by a green square in this map. Here, the genitive case seems to serve the same purpose as -ing. The actual combination -inghoven / -inghofen, on the other hand, seems to be somewhat rarer outside certain regions, but there is for example Gallingkofen in Bavaria.

Of cause, there are also an abundance of places ending in -ingen (which is, again, a dative form).

Linguists have tried to draw conclusions about the settlement history from such place names (I have read, for example, that places ending in -ingen are supposedly older that those in -(ing)hofen), but I personally think a lot of that might be purely speculation. Disclaimer: I am not an expert. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 05:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case you read German, 31.10.154.84: There's a bit in the German article on the toponomastic suffix "-ing" as well here: In der Schweiz gibt es viele Ortsnamen, die auf -ikon enden. Was steckt dahinter?. Places ending in -ikon aren't completely unique to Switzerland, they exist in Southern Germany too, but there are very few; in fact, the only one I was able to come up with quickly is Ettikon. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much! That was very informative. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

कृपया, नीचे दिये हुए वाक्य की वर्तनी की जाँच कीजिए, जिसमें- ' लिए किये गए' - साथ में आये तो किस प्रकार लिखें?

रोमन कैथोलिक मिशनरी, मदर टेरेसा द्वारा गरीबों की मदद करने के लिए किये गए अत्यधिक कार्य के बारे में पता कीजिए। — Preceding unsigned comment added by किशोर खंडागले (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above appears to be a question about how to write a sentence concerning the work of Mother Theresa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

नमस्कार, किशोर खंडागले,

सवाल के लिए आपका धन्यवाद। हालांकि, मुझे लगता है कि आप एक बेहतर जवाब यहाँ प्राप्त होगा: hi:विकिपीडिया:चौपाल —Stephen (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the above appears to be advice to try a help desk on Hindi WP. —Tamfang (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For most words ending with -ate, when the -able suffix is added to the word, the original -ate is dropped. Examples:

estimate → estimable

imitate → imitable

manipulate → manipulable

generate → generable

However, that's not always the case. With some words, only the letter e in the original -ate ending is dropped when -able is appended to the word. Examples:

relate → relatable

debate → debatable

rate → ratable

Is the difference based on the number of syllables? What's the exact rule? --100.34.204.4 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but if you apply your first system to "rate", you end up with "rable". Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't know the rule or pattern, but your last three examples have the accent on the last syllable (the -ate syllable) of the uninflected form, while your first four examples have the accent two syllables before the -ate syllable. Loraof (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the location of the stress is indeed the determining factor, but I can't think of any examples with the stress on the syllable immediately before the -ate syllable. Loraof (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. It seems that all the words that I can think of that follow the second pattern have the stress on the last syllable. --100.34.204.4 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your first four examples all correspond directly to first-conjugation Latin verbs, and the last three do not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unlikely to be the feature that makes the difference. Not all English speakers know Latin. The internalized rules that most people rely on to determine the correct derived forms can't possibly require knowing Latin. --100.34.204.4 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people do rely on "internalized rules" in this case. These words are simply memorized; they are not based on a productive rule. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estimable, unfortunately, derives from esteem, and is unrelated to estimate. The difficulty with the English language is that there is usually no exact rule - words have evolved over a long period, and in different ways. There is no logical reason why it is imitable rather than imitatable - it has just turned out that way. Wymspen (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Estimatable" is a real word according to Garner's Modern English Usage (p. 348). If not, it ought to be. I support Garner's assertion that "estimable" has changed its allegiance from "estimate" to "esteem" since the Book of Common Prayer talks of God's "inestimable love" (in the General Confession), meaning "beyond estimation" rather than "not esteemed". I also agree with User:Wymspen that English is not a language bound by logical rules. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alan (& Garner) that estimatable ought to be a word since the older meaning of estimable is now obsolete according to the OED. Why does no dictionary have this word? Dbfirs 07:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in INVEST (mnemonic) "for agile software projects" (?). "E [stands for] Estimatable: You must always be able to estimate the size of a PBI" (PBI = Product Backlog Item). Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there's "primate", for which see primitable.... 07:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the adjectival form of the country's name? I'm trying to write about an organisation of and based in B&H, so how does one say: "ABC is a <B&H> organisation which..."? Countries with simpler names are easy: British, French, Egyptian, etc, but this one has me stumped. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See "List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just use Bosnian - there is no grammatical way to turn such a compound name into an adjective. If keeping both parts matters, just say it is an organisation based in B&H, and forget about an adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymspen (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bosnia and Herzegovina says that "Bosnia" is commonly used as shorthand for the whole country, so calling a company based there "Bosnian" would be appropriate. You could also use "Herzogovinian" if the company is based in the region of Herzegovina (as opposed to the region of Bosnia). clpo13_(talk) 22:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Herzegovinan"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's also an appropriate demonym, but it looks like "Bosnian" is more common (Google Ngram Viewer, Google Trends) The article Bosnia (region) also says that "Bosnia" was historically the common term for the whole region and the combined form only dates back to the mid-19th century (though it lacks a citation). clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Herzegovina which explains both the origin of the term and the ethnic makeup. There are not a people known as "Herzegovinans" or "Herzegovinians", instead the region is populated by other ethnic groups. By convention, nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina are simply known as Bosnians, which is a distinct term than the ethnic group known as Bosniaks, which is used for a distinct ethnic group of traditionally Muslim South Slavs that mostly (though not completely or exclusively) live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Wikipedia does have an article on Herzegovinians, which seems to indicate it is mainly used to describe residents of the loosely defined region of Herzegovina, but whom do not share a common ethnic identity. --Jayron32 01:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the advice and opinions. The subject I'm writing about is actually based in Republika Srpska, the "third" region of B&H, with a predominantly ethnic Serbian population. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In en:gb, doesn't "cease trading" basically mean the same thing as "go out of business" in en:us, i.e. the establishment is no longer in operation? Little Chef has an image with a bizarre caption, "This Little Chef has now closed and ceased trading"; for an American store to "close and go out of business" is redundant, so unless I'm misunderstanding the UK term, "close and cease trading" is likewise redundant. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It clarifies that the closure is permanent: a shop could close for refurbishment, with the intent to reopen after a short period. It would suffice just to say "ceased trading" - but there are sure to be some people who find that concept too complicated to understand.Wymspen (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here in the US to say they would "cease trading" sounds like they are no longer trading stocks on the stock exchange. Perhaps they have bought out the stockholders and have gone private. I would just say they are "closed permanently". StuRat (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Americans really talk this way? Companies don't trade their own stocks - they're not allowed to. They can, however, seek authorisation at the general meeting to repurchase a small number of shares which they either cancel or hold in treasury. If a company goes private the owners buy out the shareholders with their own money - they're not allowed to use the company's assets to do it.

There's a shop in South Woodford with a notice saying it is closed. It has certainly ceased trading, apart from the shop furniture being on sale at discount prices, but it hasn't gone out of business because the notice also says that the staff have moved to the Epping office and will be happy to see the customers there. 86.168.124.54 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just lock the doors and run away if your business isn't doing well. As a minimum, you have to finalise your accounts and settle your taxes - there may also be assets to be disposed of and creditors to pay. The point where you stop actually doing business is when you "cease trading" or "stop trading" [4] as HM Revenue and Customs now call it, but the company can't close until everything is settled. Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions: Making Sense of Transatlantic English by Orin Hargraves (p. 66) directly equates "ceased trading" in the UK with "gone out of business" in the US. My opinion is that to "cease trading" is a specific legal part of the process of "going out of business". Alansplodge (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This was brought up in the last year. Basically in Ameica, to "cease trade" is to end business, while to "ceases trading" is to exit a specific market. Look up AT&T which ceased trading after the Lott/Ebbers fraud, but which never ceased trade, given it was bought out by Bell South. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this before but it got removed, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't break the rules though since Wikipedia has articles on fuck and pussy, etc so curse words are not forbidden. So I'm asking it again, if there is something wrong with this please explain why instead of just deleting it without explanation.

The Japanese word for cat is "neko". In Japanese can neko be used in the same way as "pussy" in English? By this I do not mean "pussy cat" but as a word for a womans vagina. For example, "he wanted to put his penis into her neko" (ぼくわのにくはめるねこ). Would that sentence work in Japanese?

No. According to our article and Urban Dictionary (neither of which are reliable sources - confirmation of this usage would be useful), it can also mean "catamite", but not "vagina". Tevildo (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC) -- (Courtesy link added: 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:ED78:2C1B:802D:2371 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, I have access to AP Images through my school and am trying to use this image in an APA formatted project. I am having some trouble figuring out how to cite the image. I have attempted to look online, but I'm not seeing anything concrete. Any assistance/help along with credentials or a resource link would be greatly appreciated. I am currently a Masters of Science student so I need to make sure I do this correctly. Thanks in advance!

http://imgur.com/gallery/8XeCl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.99.13 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us attempting to follow along, presumably this relates to citations formatted in APA (American Psychological Association) style for Associated Press images. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:ED78:2C1B:802D:2371 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As an experimental question or a phonological one, how do you pronounce the first syllable of the title Ico-D? Could the pronunciation be /'aɪkoʊ/ (British En.: /'aɪkəʊ/) whether or /'iːkoʊ/, /'ɪkoʊ/ (Br.En.: /'iːkəʊ/, /'ɪkəʊ/)? Thank you in advance. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logic would suggest it should be eye-coe-dee. If they wanted it to be read as eye-cod, they likely wouldn't have hyphenated it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not responsive to the question....The OP could ask them by email, at info@ico-D.org. Loraof (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. If the OP gets an answer back, he could add that bit of info to the article. Although, truth to tell, he could just call them and see how they answer their phone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's wording suggests a survey of what pronunciation(s) we as readers infer from the spelling. So: I assume it's /'ajko:/. —Tamfang (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

’smatter, Bugs, you gotta problem with IPA? —Tamfang (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPA is useless, as most people don't 'speak' it. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]