Language desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

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

September 2[edit]

-ikon in place names around Zurich[edit]

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]

लिए किये गए, अगर साथ में आये तो किस प्रकार लिखना होगा?[edit]

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]

Rules for adding -able to words ending with -ate[edit]

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)

Not that it should surprise anyone, but I have heard all of the initial four words with the -atable ending: "estimatable", "imitatable", "manipulatable", "generatable". They look weird spelled out in black and white - and all are redlined as spelling errors - but I've heard them used in speech numerous times and I've probably used them without a second thought. Of course, "generable" also registers as a redline. And so does redline. :) Matt Deres (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention redlink. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectival form of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

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. --Jayron 32 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]

I don't know if it's proper, but there are plenty of instances in the wild (and on Wikipedia!) of people using "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" or variants, with the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film Festival as a specific example. There's also "Bosno-Herzegovinian" and friends, but that's much rarer and extremely 19th-century. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The common adjective is "Bosnian" (although Herzegovinians such as myself frown upon that). Thus we say Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs regardless of whether they live in Herzegovina or Bosnia. In some cases, however, Wikipedia tends to favour "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as the adjective: Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina actors, for example. Republika Srpska is not a "third region", but an administrative unit covering a half of Herzegovina and a half of Bosnia. Using "Bosnian" would be okay per common usage, especially if the company itself is based in the region of Bosnia, though the Herzegovinian in me would suggest using "Bosnia and Herzegovina". The form "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" appears to be a direct translation of the native adjective (босанскохерцеговачки, bosanskohercegovački). Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]