| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 26 | << May | June | Jul >> | 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. |
Courtesy link: Archangel
In the article, someone changed ɑr|k|ˈ|eɪ|n|dʒ|əl|s to ɑr|tʃ|ˈ|eɪ|n|dʒ|əl|s. Is this a valid pronounciation or a mixup due to words like archbishop? Should it be changed back? -- Echosmoke ( talk) 19:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thoughts sorted by particularity (increasing), and therefore by pragmatism (decreasing):
- I don't really think a pronunciation guide is required for that article.
- Both pronunciations scan as valid in modern English.
- The oldest use of the digraph ⟨ch⟩ in Latin-script alphabets like English is actually to transcribe the Greek ⟨χ⟩, whence archangel ← ἀρχάγγελος. So, the most etymological pronunciation in English is with /k/, not conflated with the later but now more ubiquitous use of ⟨ch⟩ used to write /tʃ/.
-
Remsense
诉
19:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither OED nor my trusty Collins 20th Century have the |tʃ| pronunciation.
DuncanHill (
talk)
20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aye. I just mean that I wouldn't necessarily notice if someone used /tʃ/ in the flow of conversation, but I've neglected to directly answer that /k/ is much more common in any case. Remsense 诉 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither OED nor my trusty Collins 20th Century have the |tʃ| pronunciation.
DuncanHill (
talk)
20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Before a recent edit, SS London (1864) had "Nineteen people escaped on the life boat ... The London took with her two hundred and forty-four persons." (my bold) Both now read as "people". I preferred the previous wording, perhaps because those who survived did so together, while the victims presumably died separately. However I can't revert just on my sense of nuance. Any ideas? Doug butler ( talk) 22:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think today it's a stylistic toss-up. Merriam-Webster has a discussion on this.
- First paragraph:
- People should always be used when a collective noun referring to the entirety of a group or nation (i.e., "the French People") is called for. For references to groups of a specific or general number, either people or persons may be used. However, modern style guides tend to prefer people where earlier guides preferred persons, especially for countable groups. OtherDave ( talk) 23:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- To me, "persons" means fewer persons/people than "people". In particular, I've never run across so many (244) referred to as persons. Also, having both "persons" and "people" so close together in the same paragraph strikes me as rather odd. So, for both reasons, I'm a "people" person. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, much appreciated. Doug butler ( talk) 23:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 26 | << May | June | Jul >> | 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. |
Courtesy link: Archangel
In the article, someone changed ɑr|k|ˈ|eɪ|n|dʒ|əl|s to ɑr|tʃ|ˈ|eɪ|n|dʒ|əl|s. Is this a valid pronounciation or a mixup due to words like archbishop? Should it be changed back? -- Echosmoke ( talk) 19:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thoughts sorted by particularity (increasing), and therefore by pragmatism (decreasing):
- I don't really think a pronunciation guide is required for that article.
- Both pronunciations scan as valid in modern English.
- The oldest use of the digraph ⟨ch⟩ in Latin-script alphabets like English is actually to transcribe the Greek ⟨χ⟩, whence archangel ← ἀρχάγγελος. So, the most etymological pronunciation in English is with /k/, not conflated with the later but now more ubiquitous use of ⟨ch⟩ used to write /tʃ/.
-
Remsense
诉
19:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither OED nor my trusty Collins 20th Century have the |tʃ| pronunciation.
DuncanHill (
talk)
20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aye. I just mean that I wouldn't necessarily notice if someone used /tʃ/ in the flow of conversation, but I've neglected to directly answer that /k/ is much more common in any case. Remsense 诉 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither OED nor my trusty Collins 20th Century have the |tʃ| pronunciation.
DuncanHill (
talk)
20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Before a recent edit, SS London (1864) had "Nineteen people escaped on the life boat ... The London took with her two hundred and forty-four persons." (my bold) Both now read as "people". I preferred the previous wording, perhaps because those who survived did so together, while the victims presumably died separately. However I can't revert just on my sense of nuance. Any ideas? Doug butler ( talk) 22:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think today it's a stylistic toss-up. Merriam-Webster has a discussion on this.
- First paragraph:
- People should always be used when a collective noun referring to the entirety of a group or nation (i.e., "the French People") is called for. For references to groups of a specific or general number, either people or persons may be used. However, modern style guides tend to prefer people where earlier guides preferred persons, especially for countable groups. OtherDave ( talk) 23:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- To me, "persons" means fewer persons/people than "people". In particular, I've never run across so many (244) referred to as persons. Also, having both "persons" and "people" so close together in the same paragraph strikes me as rather odd. So, for both reasons, I'm a "people" person. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, much appreciated. Doug butler ( talk) 23:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)