Language desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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

November 30[edit]

Languages on Serbian poster[edit]

What languages are on this Yugoslav Wars-era poster? Obviously the top one is English, but after that it looks like a mishmash of Slavic languages and the odd Romance language (is "avion ti gori" Romanian, perhaps?) switching freely between Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Smurrayinchester 09:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the first English sentence (and from the first English word of the second sentence) and from the last English sentence, the rest is in Serbian. Note that Serbian uses both Latin script (known as latinica i.e. латиница) and Cyrillic script (known as ćirilica i.e. ћирилица). HOOTmag (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I knew Serbian used both scripts, but I didn't realize how many diacritics it had – I thought the line that used "č" was a different language to "ć". Smurrayinchester 12:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For a long time and good reasons, I have..."[edit]

Would it be considered good English to start a sentence with a zeugma like that? (I failed to find examples for practical use.) --KnightMove (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's "good" English but I think it's grammatical and sort of poetic and zeugmatic. In my opinion zeugma always sounds a bit lofty, and is usually used in speeches and epics, not real-life conversations. Are you also looking for more everyday examples of zeugma? Or ways to come up with them? There are several types, as described in our article, I find a good way to recognize/generate them is to focus on a verb used in two different ways (which your example does not). So, to get further examples, think of a key verb with a literal/concrete yse, then think of a metaphorical use, then smash them together. E.g. You can fall down and fall off of things, but you can also fall into debt or into last place. So "He fell into danger and water", or "She fell off the house and into trouble" and "My hopes and hand were crushed" are more mundane zeugmatic constructions. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sort of thing I mostly associate with playful or comedic writing – Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams perhaps (for instance, Adams' claim that he "took a number of baths and a degree in English"). Not incorrect, but not standard (as SemanticMantis says, it can sound quite poetic), and perhaps poor style in formal writing. Smurrayinchester 16:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess in formal writing you properly follow the MPT-rule, like: "I have been staying here for good reasons for a long time"? --KnightMove (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an easy formal/informal split here, and your example sentence sounds awkward to me and I'd prefer the zeugmatic phrasing or a total rephrasing to what you wrote (in most circumstances). But it doesn't matter what I prefer :)

Showy rhetorical devices and figures of speech are very common in important speeches, e.g. the chiasmus in "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Are such speeches examples of formal writing? I'd think the appropriateness of zeugma is more about the expected audience and goal of the piece of writing rather than formality. So I'd say zeugmas are not that useful or welcome in most WP articles (because they might be confusing, though I can't find any guidance by skimming WP:MOS), but these devices are fine in novels, blog posts, essays, etc. They would be fine in some school projects (creative writing) but frowned on in others (technical writing). The Chicago manual of style has recommendations for use and punctuation for elliptical constructions (which often fit the broader definitions of zeugma, type 3 in our article), but I don't have a copy of CMS present and I don't know if it talks specifically about zeugma/syllepsis. So if you really want a more authoritative voice on when it's ok, then look to a language maven like Strunk & White or a style guide like CMS. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian vocative[edit]

For almost seven years, Vocative case § Lithuanian has had a hatnote requiring attention from an expert, because it claims that it "developed new forms for several classes of nouns." What are the new forms Lithuanian developed? Thanks! — Sebastian 22:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we have anyone on this desk with expertise in Lithuanian. You might have better luck contacting someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania. Marco polo (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks! — Sebastian 16:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]