Punctuation regarding things happening overnight (WW2 Blitz)

I have been reading Wikipedia articles regarding the WW2 Blitz where most UK cities were bombed overnight in 1940 and 41. To me, slashes feel wrong because to me, it feels like it occurred on one of the two days, rather than during the night because I take the '/' to mean 'or', even though its commonly (mis)used to mean 'and' in informal texts. Is there a reason that is used (eg: 'night of 7/8 September 1939'), rather than hyphens/dashes ('night of 7-8 September 1939')? JuniperChill (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as a native, "7/8 September" seems perfectly clear and normal to me. "WW2" on the other hand doesn't. "Second World War" for preference, "WWII" if you have tired fingers. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

No WWII either. Not for formal writing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American vs British thing. We generally write dates like that with a hyphen Jessintime (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess that might be why then JuniperChill (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@JuniperChill: See MOS:SLASH which explains why slashes' ambiguity means they're best avoided apart from a few specific exceptions. MOS:RANGE suggests that en-dashes are preferred for a date range (e.g. the night of 7–8 September). Bazza 7 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Guess I knew why Wikipedia's MOS discourage the use of slashes then, much like discouraging the use of all numeric dates (which is normally written using slashes: eg 11/10/2026). Of course, the MOS is only mandatory to follow for featured articles and a few aspects for GA, but many editors choose to follow it anyway. (And also, I meant to put 'September 1940' rather than 1939 cause I got mixed up between when the year the war started and when the Blitz began, but I was just using it as an example anyway.) JuniperChill (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Numeric dates? That's because the North American standard is MM-DD-YY(YY) and the European standard is DD-MM-YY(YY), right? I've seen that leading to confusion several times in international contexts. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

More like ‑(YY)YY. —Antonissimo (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I have in front of me two books by reputable authors on the German bombing campaign against Britain in the First World War; both use the 7/8 format. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Best translation of the Greek phrase: Ἀποδείξεις Ἱστοριῶν

This is the title of a history book written in the 1450's. I believe it is latinized as "Apodeixis Historion". Currently, the author's page uses two translations of the title, "Demonstrations of Histories" and "Display of Histories." I felt that the book should have a uniform title on the page, so I wanted to ask anyone who was familiar with (ancient?) Greek, what is the best translation of this book title? LincolnMagnus (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Doing some research this is probably a reference to the firts line of Herodotus' Histories. Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε (Hērodótou Halikarnēsséos historíēs apódexis hḗde), which is usually translated as "This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus". Where ἀπόδεξις(apódexis) is 'display' and ἱστορίης(historíēs) means 'inquiry'. It aquired the meaning 'history' from Herodotus' use of it as a title of his work. Since this new book is basically just pluralizing Herodotus, I might go for just 'Histories (literally Displays of Histories)' but certainly 'demonstrations' is within the semantic range of the word. The Modern Grerek form απόδειξη(apódeixē) can mean 'proof', 'evidence', or even 'reciept' as from a restauraunt. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  "Histories" is another title variation used, so that might be the one to go with. Thank you LincolnMagnus (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Ideally one would use the title of a published English translation rather than making one up (borderline WP:OR). Unfortunately, Laonikos_Chalkokondyles#Translations lists two translations with different titles, one "The Histories" (Kaldellis), the other "Demonstrations of History" (Nikoloudis). There doesn't seem to be a good basis for calling it "Display...". An option might be on first mention of the book: "Ἀποδείξεις Ἱστοριῶν (Apodeixis Historion, variously translated as Demonstrations of Histories or The Histories)". Further on, one could simply use The Histories by virtue of its brevity. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you LincolnMagnus (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

ə and ʌ in GA

1. Does those two sounds sound exactly the same in GA or very similarly but not the same? (this website suggest the latter)

2. If the latter is true, is there a way to say whether I'm dealing with "ə" or "ʌ" when I'm using the Merriam-Webster dictionary (which doesn't show "ʌ")?

Thanks in advance ~2026-54646-70 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't hear any difference in my own voice or when listening to the sound samples at General American English#Lists of monophthongs, diphthongs, and R-colored vowels. As I understand it, ʌ occurs in stressed sylables and ə in unstressed ones. And they are considered two phonemes by linguists who link that ə only occurs in unstressed syalables by definition. So if ə occurs in a sylable with marked stress it must be ʌ in the two phoneme system. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not a native speaker, and my own accent is somewhat of a Swedish-colored Mid-Atlantic, but it appears as if in GA, ʌ has more or less been merged with/ absorbed into ə. (The "pure" ʌ sample in the article is quite distinct from the sample in General American English.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

American English question

Okay so, where I am having a problem with American English is the way you say you are going to go to bed or rest. I hear "lie down" but sometimes I hear "lay down." Lie down is pronouced like the word lie, and lay is pronouced like Lay's potato-chips. Which one is the correct one when it comes to resting, lie down or lay down? As in "I'm gonna lie down because I feel tired" or "I'm gonna lay down because I feel tired" •PINK RENEGADE RAIDER• (Can we just talk, figure out where we're going?) 04:30, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I Googled "lie vs lay" and here's one of the results: ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

"To lay something or someone down" means "to make something or someone lie down".

To lay down is a transitive verb; it is used with an object: He was a man and they laid him down.

To lie down is a transitive an intransitive verb; it does not take an object: There's a pain in my heart, and I want to lie down.

What is confusing is that the verb form lay is the first & second person singular present tense of to lay, but also the simple past tense of to lie. I lay down on my bed means basically the same as I was lying on my bed. This is an issue of English in general. The Wiktionary entry for lay contains a table with a comparison of verb forms of to lay and to lie.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of confusion, I think you meant to say that to lie down is an intransitive verb. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I feel it should be noted that "lie vs lay" is a very common issue in American English. You will find just as many who would say "lie" as who would say "lay". You will also find many who said "lied" or "layed" as well. (And yes, it should be "laid", but people who say it also write "layed".) ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

It's quite simple to differentiate since the strong verb defines the location (horizontal resting), the weak one the movement to this position: lie - lay - lain > resting place, lay - laid - laid (old contracted weak form) is the causative of lie, i.e. lay is the cause why one lies, cf. to fell, e. g. cut down a tree > fall, e. g. the tree falls. This differentiation is very old and can be found in other Germanic languages, too, cf. Low German: liggen - leeg - lägen, but leggen - läd (also a contracted form) - leggt or German liegen - lag - gelegen, but legen - legte (the contracted form was very often used in Middle High German leit[e]) - gelegt. Notice the similarities between these two Verbs: lay = simple past of lie and infinitive, present forms of lay or German gelegen = Partizip II, i. e. Past Participle of liegen and the infinitive legen. Or have look at fall: fell = simple past of to fall or infinitive, simple present forms of fell (in German the two verbs are fällen 'to fell' and fallen 'to fall').

Since English hasn't got a reflexive version of lay, lie is used instead, hence there is no object: I lie down, which would be Ich lege mich hin in German. If there is a "doer" (agens) and a "victim" (patiens) lay is used.--~2026-56200-33 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean that it doesn't have a reflexive version. Generally any transitive verb can be used reflexively if you want to, though I suppose some of them might not make much sense used that way. For "lay" it's perfectly idiomatic, if possibly a little dated: I laid myself down to sleep. (There's even a children's verse that starts Now I lay me down to sleep; here the "me" instead of "myself" is a bit marked.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Americans who say "right?" at the end of every sentence

When did this start? First noticed it about four, maybe five years ago. It came out of nowhere, like someone invented it one day and everyone else started copying them. It needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

It is a very old speech pattern that is easy to trace back to the 1600s with "right?" being a form of "do you understand?" It is just one such word. Others that became popular over time are "see?" and "eh?" The popularity grew with hard-boiled detective and gangster fiction, which was translated into stereotypical gangster-speak in early movies. As for noticing it in modern speech, it is likely one of those things that once you hear it, you can't stop hearing it. Depending on the age of my audience I like might like tell like them like that like there like is like a like word like that like I like prefer like they like limit like using. Or actually there actually is actually another actually word actually that actually they actually are actually using actually too actually much... literally. ~2026-46630-01 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm talking about wider usage with people who are front facing in the media. AFAICT, this type of usage started on the East Coast during the pandemic and took off from there. Similar to how vocal fry became trendy 15 years ago or more (my sister was using it in the early 2000s and I thought she had something wrong with her voice. Nope, she picked it up at uni). This new, modern use of "right?" is a huge turn off and makes me stop listening to anyone who uses it. Viriditas (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Better that than "ya know". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't get me started! I had an aunt who used that heavily in the 1970s and 1980s. It gave me a massive headache. Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

When I happen to listen to NPR, it's annoying to hear presumably intelligent guests on programs saying "ya know" frequently. That's when I switch to sports talk radio. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you pick sports talk radio because their guests are not presumably intelligent ?  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But they talk fast enough that they don't pause to say "ya know" very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Now you have me stumped. Can you remember which show? I am very sensitive to this and would have noticed it. There was a famous guest, I believe she was a writer, who does this whenever she comes on, and it stands out, but her name escapes me. She was recently on Maddow about four to six months ago. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall now. Possibly on Jenn White's show. But the next time I stumble across some of that, I'll let you know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Today I was even hearing it on sports talk radio. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Praxeostrasis(?)

Someone on HN writes:

All human languages are praxeostratic, they result from the cumulation of practices through time.

I hadn't seen the word "praxeostratic" before, but I liked it. However, web search went back to that same HN post, and small spelling variations didn't find anything either. Is there some kind of root word (maybe non-English) or alternate spelling that's more recognizably cromulent? Does it apply to concepts other than languages? Thanks. ~2026-55120-59 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

It's a hybrid word from Greek praxeo- (act, practice) and Latin stratic (related to strata, layer). I assume a proper singular noun would be praxeostratum. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I concur in the choice of praxeostratum, plural praxeostrata. The learned coiner would, IMO, have done better to construct the adjective in the form praxeostratal ; cf. substratal ("pertaining to a substrate language").  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I also think that maybe the term "stratopractic(al)" would make more logical sense. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

AFAICT the term is a hapax legomenon, having been used (thus far) solely in this reply on HN. If you want to appropriate it for, say, characterizing archeological strata, no authority exists that might block your way.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:00, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

By the way, what does HN stand for? It isn't clear from context. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hacker News. Looks like a sort of message board. Deor (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hacker News (I had to Google it). Alansplodge (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It sounds like the author tried to slip a neologism past us. I still like it but it would be better if he or she had informed us that it was a newly invented term. ~2026-55120-59 (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, they did immediately explain it, they derived it in a regular way from 'learned' languages which have been thus utilised countless times in the past, and it does actually encapsulate a useful concept. Back in the day when I wrote for science fiction fanzines, I tried to invent a neologism in every piece. Keeps people thinking. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If we want to be pernickety, we can still criticize the author for their sentence being a comma splice. They should have used a colon, dash, or semicolon.  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Who are the "us" past whom the coiner tried to slip it? Psychoslave presumably did not expect to be quoted in Wikipedia. —Antonissimo (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

bicultural dithematic names

Dithematic names exist in most branches of IE. Are there any recorded names formed from two branches, like Vladoric or Fredeslav (Slavic+Germanic)? —Antonissimo (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Which "IE" are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Indo-European languages I expect. ~2026-55120-59 (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The name Christabel, popularised by Coleridge's poem, "seems to be a compound of Christus and Latin bella" according to E. G. Withycombe, so both elements come directly from Latin, but Christus, of course, is itself from Greek. Withycombe compares it to the Old German names Cristemia, Cristehildis and Cristemberga, which also seem to fit the bill. --Antiquary (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

For a ref desk that wasn't much of a ref. To improve it: Withycombe, E. G. (1977). The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 64. ISBN 0192812130.. --Antiquary (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Another IMO equally plausible etymology for Christabel is a blend of (Latin) Christus (from Greek) and Spanish Isabel or Old Occitan Elisabel (from Hebrew, not even IE). This would explain the a, otherwise an unexpected interfix.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:54, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Or even a mutation of Cristóbal ? Nah. —Antonissimo (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Words ending with -slop

Why are there so many new words, that surged in 2020s, always ended with -slop? That usually happens, after the term, "AI slop" gained in popularity and went mainstream? ~2026-56457-42 (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason as for -athon signifying an "event or activity lasting a long time or involving a great deal of something"; or -gate for a scandal. See Libfix for a detailed, if rather heavy, explanation. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The use of slop in the sense of content that is worthless, or produced and consumed mindlessly, is attested in Wiktionary by a citation from 1994:

In a night spent surfing the television “datasphere” (to use another Cyberia buzzword), you can watch slop like Knight Rider 2010 (where virtual reality is a weekly plot point) ..."

So this is not new. What is new is the emergence in Internet slang of -slop as a suffix. This may be related to the increase in volume of worthless content on the Internet.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)