Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 December 13

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.

December 13

Poetry Punctuation

Poet Robert Creeley often uses periods in between stanzas that are centered in the space between the stanzas. What are they called? What is the correct term for such line breaks? Regard, Mark Lee--74.138.145.133 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A kind of interpunct, perhaps? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd call the symbols themselves bullets rather than periods. I think this corresponds to what Noah Lukeman calls a section break, "the most subjective of punctuation marks" (A Dash of Style: The Art and Mastery of Punctuation ISBN 9780393060874). There is a wide range of variation in the symbols or glyphs used to indicate such a breaks. A common form consists of three asterisks, sometimes called asterism, also when more or less collinear and with white space in-between rather than in a tight triangular arrangement, but I've also seen fleurons like ❧ and other dingbats used for the purpose.  --Lambiam 09:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a word meaning "devoid of authority."

I am looking for a word meaning "devoid of authority."

Rlemay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemay (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Powerless? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

chaotic, anarchic. Maybe lawless, unruly? The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example sentence in which you'd like to use that word? If you mean an adjective to qualify a person who carries no authority, perhaps amateur, nonprofessional, dilettante, novice, insignificant, low-ranking, undistinguished. For nouns, you could say that someone is a nobody, a nonentity, a little guy.  --Lambiam 09:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also powerless or toothless. In a specific context in US politics, a lame duck. --Anonymous, 19:47 UTC, December 13.

It could also possibly mean invalid (a decree devoid of authority, for example). Wareh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In that context, the decree is void or it is a nullity. --Anon, 19:47 UTC, December 13.

Uncharismatic Steewi (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hollow? Toothless? Extralegal? Unauthorized? Non-authoritative? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vocab Qeustion

I have a sentance in a reccomendation and a word seems to be misused. The sentence is below... any advice will help.

Her sense of self is one of her most endearing traits.

Shouldn't endearing be enduring? Thanks --Devol4 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether you want to say that it's lasted a long time, or that it makes other people like her... AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably make sense as endearing than as enduring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.92.247 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good and somehow sentimental sentence.There is nothing wrong with 'endearing',however ,this depends on what feelings the person wants to convey.In that case any one of the lexis from this sentence can be put on objection.--Mike robert (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, what does "any one of the lexis from this sentence can be put on objection" mean? --Anon, 22:59 UTC, December 13.

He means that if you don't assume that the sentence is supposed to mean what it seems to mean - that a female person possessed a sense of self which was among those of her traits that caused people to like her most - then there's no way to know whether any of the words are right, since the intended meaning of the sentence would then be unknown. (However, lexemes, or even better words, not lexis, should have been used.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people write something in a recommendation that acts as a prompt to get the receiver to call them up to ask what it means. This may be when there is something they feel they can't put on paper. SaundersW (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Using multiple titles for names

I recently was charged with creating a flyer for MLK day at my office. I have seen many different sources refer to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as "Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." I was wondering if there is a general rule for limiting the number of titles used. Generally, the title of Mr. is dropped in lieu of Dr. if the person has attained that level of education, but titles from military service (Sgt., Lt., Col., etc.) and the Church as well seem to be a bit more confusing. I don't think that addressing someone as Rev. Col. Dr. Smith is correct, but I haven't been able to find a documented grammar rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholycross (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Rev. Dr" is not so uncommon, nor is "Professor Sir ...". "Professor Dr ..." is not used. Professor Lord Robert Winston is probably one of a kind. [1] Steve Redgrave's wife seems to be Dr Lady Ann Redgrave (which seems odd to me, as unless she has her own lady title she is Lady Redgrave, not Lady Ann Redgrave). There are a few "Dr Sirs" around, too.

There was Professor Lord David Cecil. As a humble baron (not the son of a duke or a marquess), Robert Winston is Professor Lord Winston, not Professor Lord Robert Winston. Xn4 03:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

True. The examples of "Dr Lady Ann Redgrave", and "Princess Diana" as well seem to show we are becoming less strict in the application of these rules. SaundersW (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Military ranks can be used with "sir" such as "Col Sir Donald Cameron of Lochiel" [2], and also Lord, eg Maj Gen Lord Michael Fitzalan Howard [3].

Here is Lt. Col. Dr. Robert Bowman [4] though many military folk with a doctorate seem to put that in brackets. I suspect that is why you don't see the Rev. Col Dr: if (Dr) is put into parentheses with a military title, it would then disappear altogether with a Rev. as well. SaundersW (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We had the case of Florence Bjelke-Petersen, whose husband was knighted; and thus she was Lady B-P. Then she was elected to the Senate and became either Senator Florence B-P or Senator Lady B-P. Folks tried to accord her her full title Senator Lady Florence B-P, but that didn't work because "Lady Florence" implies she was the daughter of a peer, or something like that. You couldn't imagine the amount of bureaucratic wrangling that went on in Canberra about her proper form of address. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In Germany you just string everything along: "Herr Professor Dr. Dr.-Ing. h.c.".[5] Something like what Anglo-Saxons do at the end: "Chilton, Charles, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., F.L.S., C.M.Z.S., F.R.S.N.Z."[6]  --Lambiam 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar in Polish. Here's a real life example: Tadeusz Płoski is a military chaplain, a bishop holding a general's rank. He also holds a PhD in theology. He is therefore officially referred to in Polish as: Jego Ekscelencja ks. bp gen. bryg. dr Tadeusz Płoski (His Excellency Rev. Bishop Brigadier General Dr ...). — Kpalion^(talk) 10:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The same in the Netherlands. A professor at my alma mater, for instance, is Prof.dr. L.W. Gormley, MA MSc Barrister. I'm curious to see his business card. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On the original question: older authorities say Reverend is an adjective, not a title, and does not take the place of a prefix; Reverend Blank is less correct than the reverend Mr Blank. —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)