I wrote a WP article and included the following two credit sentences: 1. Stories of Today and Yesterday ..., Frederick Law, editor, February 1930. 2. Real Estate Record ..., February 7, 1891. p. 199.

The full titles of the books are "Stories of Today and Yesterday: Thirty Selected Short Stories, Nine Imitative Stories by Students" and "Real Estate Record and Builders' Guide." There is a natural comma after the ellipsis in both cases. So it seems most grammatically correct to keep as is. However, does the ellipsis itself indicate a pause? Should the two commas after the ellipsis be removed? Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write the full titles? Unlike papers there is plenty of space here. Modocc (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full title of the first: Stories of To-Day and Yesterday: Thirty Selected Short Stories, Nine Imitative Stories By Students, Questions for Class Discussion, Directions for Creative Narration. The second is already written out in full in the sentence that comes before it. My Q though was about the grammar. JimPercy (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The commas need to stay, for they separate the items. Modocc (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. True. If the full title was written out a comma would be in that spot. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to only use the title proper of a book and not its subtitle. For example, West from Home: Letters of Laura Ingalls Wilder, San Francisco, 1915 is commonly referred to as just West from Home.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that should work too. JimPercy (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In English-speaking countries, can people have multiple first names? In Finland, up to four first names are permitted. For example, Erkki Matti Esimerkki has two first names, and Matti is a toinen nimi. Both Erkki and Matti are etunimi. The name among the first names with which the person is called when calling by first name doesn't need to be the first given name. Finnish people do not have middle names. Is this possible in English-speaking countries? --40bus (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK people can have one, two, three, or more forenames. I have two, and am known by (called) the first. One of my great-grandfathers also had two, but was known by the second. There really is very little, if anything, to restrict naming in UK law, except the registering officer may reject obscenities, numerals, and the like. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Middle name(s)" is just a colloquial term for all one's fornames after the first one (if any). I have one, my Father has one, my Grandfather had two, Ferdie Habsberg has, err, lots. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdie Habsburg is from a German-speaking country, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But English is a Germanic language, our cultures are similar, and our treatment of forenames is the same. All right, then, try this British Army Captain. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Brighton & Hove Albion legend Charlie Oatway. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cal McLish comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010 I legally changed my name. I originally had a given name and a middle name. I abandoned both of them, giving myself a new given name and two new middle names. What a fun (joke) process it was, changing all my official documents etc, and informing my family and friends. But it was worth it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King Charles III of the UK is Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it Windsor-Mountbatten? Or just Mountbatten? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mountbatten-Windsor. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not so;

Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor: And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary: And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons: Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

1960 Privy Council declaration quoted in our Mountbatten-Windsor article. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The British monarchy has a recent history of usually using one of their middle names (almost always more than one) as their regnal name, rather than their first name. And they've often been known within their family by a different name again. Queen Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria. Edward VII was Albert Edward. George V was always George (+ 3 other names). Edward VIII was always Edward (+ 6 other names; but he was always known to his family as David, the last of his 7 names). George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George (known to his family as Bertie). It's only since Elizabeth II came to the throne that the first name has been consistently used (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; Charles Philip Arthur George). It'd be very surprising if Prince William Arthur Philip Louis was known as anything other than William V, but there are plenty of precedents, and there's nothing to prevent him from calling himself King Murgatroyd I if he wants. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas Battenberg was known as Dickie, because he already had a cousin Nickie so couldn't be called that. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will could call himself King Arthur, which would be interesting. Or, since he's good at getting along with people, he could be William the Concurrer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those "in the know" were confidently predicting, for many years, that Charles was intending to call himself George VII. He didn't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was more that there were a few anomalies for specific reasons and that recent monarchs have returned to the norm:

• Alexandrina Victoria was so named for political reasons (after Tsar Alexander I of Russia) and disliked her first name from a young age. She was therefore generally known solely as Victoria even before she came to the throne.
• Victoria's obsession with her husband was such that she wanted all subsequent kings to be "King Albert Something", hence Albert Edward and his elder son (who died before succeeding) Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Albert Edward himself was not so enamoured with this plan and chose to reign as plain Edward VII.
• Albert, Duke of York, chose to reign as George VI to emphasise continuity (with his father George V) after the abdication crisis. It was a little odd as he had a brother who was actually known as George (the Duke of Kent), but it was presumably thought that King Albert would have sounded too novel (and perhaps too German, the First World War being not such a distant memory at that point).

Both before and after those oddities, using the first name alone has been pretty standard. Proteus (Talk) 13:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is -al ending in Latin and Greek loanwords (sometimes -ar) also added to native English words? So, if it is solar, lunar, nocturnal, oral, can it also be sunal, moonal, nightal and mouthal? And is that ending ever pronounced with a full vowel? --40bus (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you ask this question some months ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is 'No', although I guess it could be used jocularly. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shudder to think what adjective form they would come up with for Uranus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even sunly, moonly, nightly (when not referring to the time) and mouthly comes off quite forced. The most natural phrasing would probably be sunlike, moonlike, nightlike and mouthlike, or rephrased as "related to the mouth" or something. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "moonly" we say "monthly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing, though, although you might have been joking... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how it's used. Also, among 40bus' examples is "nightal", which sounds like a sleep aid, though it's spelled differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are English words with the suffix -al that are not loanwords but were formed by adding the suffix to an English word. Some examples: accrual, acquittal and arisal. They are rare, though; the suffix is not productive.  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except for arisal, I can readd the words bridal and burial from a deleted post, although when I look them up on Wiktionary, the situation seems a bit complicated with various Germanic suffixes being reinterpreted and conflated with the Latinate -al. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One arguably productive usage is in the IUPAC nomenclature for aldehydes. Fortunately IUPAC is mostly ignored on this point. We should get more in the habit of ignoring similar bodies generally. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Aldehydes are named by replacing the suffix -ane with -anal." It's jargon. Modocc (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]