Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Tibetan Buddhist debating

I am editing a transcript of a discussion about Tibetan Buddhist debating. I haven't been able to track down a spelling for the word heard by the transcriber as "tarksay" (or "tarkshay"). I assume it's a Tibetan term. "They have sort of stylized debates just to perfect their knowledge of the teaching and sharpen their wits. This is called (?)tarksay and it is also included in their examinations for their Geshe’s degree when they pass out from one of the big monastic colleges. The Gelugpas attach very great importance to this ?tarksay." Any suggestion would be appreciated. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably rtags gsal. Based on what I read at Lhasa Tibetan § Phonology, I think this may well be heard like "tarksay". Here the "phonetics" are given as taksel, while the Wikipedia article says that syllable-final /l/ is often realized as a lengthening of the preceding vowel.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I hope nobody uses its resemblance to "talk-say" to posit a link or loaning between English and Tibetan, or something. I've seen worse in pseudo-linguistics. {The poster formerly knwn as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It would provide an example of "hear-say".  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be a talk-sayk surmise. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Mongolian

What are the two forms of Mongolian used in the translations of the UDHR preamble here ("Хүмүн бүри төрүжү…", "Хүн бүр төрж…")? ~2026-16491-33 (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a Mongolian entry for just one of the words in the first Cyrillic text, бар, but with a meaning ("tiger") that does not fit. On the other hand, Wiktionary has entries for many of the words in the second Cyrillic text. For the first of these words, хүн, Wiktionary states that it is inherited from Classical Mongolian kümün, which fits the first word of the first Cyrillic text. A similar situation holds for the later word нэр, said to be inherited from Classical Mongolian ner-e. So a reasonable guess is that the first text is Classical Mongolian. The text in the traditional Mongolian script corresponds with this Classical Mongolian version, whereas the two audio recordings are of the second version, in contemporary Mongolian.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Questions

1. How common is it to use 24-hour clock in weather forecasts in the US?
2. Do English speakers associate some times in 24-hour clock with year numbers? For example, would 20:26 bring year 2026 to mind? Would they e.g. hold a minute of silence at 19:45 on the anniversary of VE Day?
3. Is the phrase o'clock ever used with 24-hour clock, such as nineteen o'clock?
4. Is 0:01 spoken as oh oh one?
5. If rake is pronounced as [reɪ̯k], race as [reɪ̯s] and rage as [reɪ̯d͡ʒ], then how would [reɪ̯g] be spelled?
6. Why word phrase is not spelled frase?
7. Is there any language where letter combination ⟨oe⟩ is pronounced /ø/?
8. Are there any words in English that end in /h/ sound? In Finnish, most such words are interjections, and for a pattern hVh exists a word from every vowel: hah, heh, hih, hoh, huh, hyh, häh and höh.
9. Is there any language where ⟨ya⟩ is pronounced as a diphthong [y̯a]?
10. Is there a name in English for a period comprising both the last days of a month that ends and the first days of a month that starts, like Finnish e.g. maalis-huhtikuun vaihde?
11. Is it possible to say already yesterday, such as I did already yesterday? In this sentence, already forms a constituent with yesterday, rather than the verb.

--40bus (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Not very.

2. Only as a joke.

3. Seldom.

4. It could be.

5. Probably rague.

6. It's from Greek.

11. "Are you going to the store?" "I did already, yesterday." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

7: German. It's normally spelled ö, but oe is acceptable and commonly used in some proper nouns or when there's a technical reason not to use the Umlaut. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

5. The -gue ending implies that the word passed through French, as in vague and rogue. I'm amused that you'd reach for silent letters instead of spelling the word *raig, as in raid, rail, and rain.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Would rague be pronounced [reɪ̯gjuː]? If not, then how would [reɪ̯gjuː] be spelled? --40bus (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

4. The usual format for times on the 24-hour clock is dd:dd, so one minute past midnight would normally be written as 00:01, most likely pronounced like zero-oh-one.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In Finnish, leading zeros are rarely used and 0:01 is pronounced nolla nollayksi. --40bus (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

7. Also in French when the digraph œ cannot be used for technical reasons, as in "oeuf". --KnightMove (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not entirely accurate. In standard French (France) bœuf (or boeuf) is pronounced \bœf\. But the plural form bœufs (or boeufs) is prononced \bø\. The same for œuf/œufs, but you could also say œufs (plural): \œf\. In fact, letter "o" is not pronounced, it's an etymological letter. bœuf from latin bŏvem (<- bos) and œuf from latin ovum. - AldoSyrt (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2 026 (UTC)

I guess you meant another letter than "o"? "s"? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't get your question. In French the letter "s" as a mark of plural (at the end of a word) is almost never pronounced. If œuf(s) were spelled euf(s) it would be pronounced in the same way and the French language would be simpler to spell and to learn. - AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

but euf could also be pronounced like French "uf", German "üff", couldn't it? -- ~2026-17002-63 (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

No French word with the trigram "euf" pronounced \yf\ comes into my mind. There are very few words with the digram "eu" pronounced \y\. Eu, eue, eus, eues, eut and eût from the verb avoir are all pronounced \y\. - AldoSyrt (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, now I get you. The digraph 'eu' and the trigraph 'oeu' would be pronounced the same. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Is bœufs ever pronounced /bœf/? --40bus (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

No, not by Francophone speakers.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Plural forms that are shorter than their singular forms (in speech, although not in text) are apparently very rare, cross-linguistically. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

7 Addendum: Cf. Goethe, in Fraktur there often were no Umlauts for majuscules until the 20th century, cf. Karl May's "Der Oelprinz". Even in written language <Oe> was used. The Duden explicitly admonished this practise: "Über die Trennpunkte. - Ä, Ö, Ü, nicht Ae, Oe, Ue" (Ä, Ö, Ü, not Ae, Oe, Ue, Duden 1926, p. XXV)--~2026-16889-29 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

10 - How about the turn of the month? Of course that leaves it somewhat open how narrow or wide a time interval is meant. -- ~2026-17002-63 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

2. A well known British joke: "A bus load of tourists arrives at Runnymede. They gather around the guide who says, "This is the spot where the barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta." A fellow at the front of the crowd asks, "When did that happen?" "1215," answers the guide. The man looks at his watch and says, "Damn! Just missed it by a half hour!" Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Its why when times are used, a colon or even a full stop should be used, because saying 'the 2019 train to Foo' could be interpreted as meaning that the train was built in the year 2019 instead of the train leaving at 20:19. An exception is transport timetables (at least in the UK) to save space, because its clear that its not going to refer to a year. Its also another advantage of using the 24-hour format because its always 4 digits long. I occasionally also see am/pm shortened to a/p but that's mostly in the US. JuniperChill (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Or the train to Foo according to the 2019 timetable. PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Would the year 2019 be said as twenty hundred and nineteen? In Finnish, the year is kaksituhattayhdeksäntoista and the time is kaksikymmentä yhdeksäntoista. "The 2019 train" is vuoden 2019 juna when referring to model year and kello 20:19 juna when referring to leaving time. And is 20:19 ever said as nineteen past twenty? --40bus (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone refer to 2019 as 'twenty hundred and nineteen' in English. Times in English are almost always said in the 12 hour format (even when reading from a 24 hour clock) and railway announcements in the UK would say 'the twenty-nineteen, Bar service to Foo' not 'nineteen past twenty' ('Bar' is the train operating company, 'Foo' is the destination. I'm only using these for demonstrative purposes). Even in (continental) Europe, its common for people to say times in the 12 hour format (see one of the maps in the 12-hour clock article). Its pretty much France that uses 24 hours, even orally. JuniperChill (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

[reply to PiusImpavidus] I couldn't think how anyone would interpret that as meaning the '2019 timetable'. How about if I say 'the 2061 train to Foo' (because times never go to 60)? JuniperChill (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

2061 can't be a time, but is unlikely to be a year, as it's still in the future. In ‘the 1961 train to Foo’, it might be the year when the train was built, but normally we don't specify trains by construction year (if there's even such a thing; different carriages etc. may have different construction years). Although, trains normally last about 35–50 years in revenue service, so a 1961 train would be a heritage train by now, so one could now specify by year (but more likely by class). But what about ‘The 1961 train to Foo called at Bar, but by the year 1968 only the local service to Quux called there; the train to Foo skipped Bar station.’? PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

As an example of the London Underground, the trains have names including the year (except for the S Stock), but its often the fact that it entered revenue service a couple years later. For instance, the 1973 Stock entered service in 1975, the 1995 Stock entered service in 1998 and the new 2024 Stock is due to enter service next year, having been delayed from 2025. Only the 1972 and 2009 Stocks actually entered passenger service that year. See London Underground rolling stock for more info. Of course, when saying 'the 1961 train', even when factoring that it cannot refer to the clock time, its still ambiguous. does it mean that the train started construction in 61, that it entered passenger service in 61 or that it was designed in 61? Not to mention that its unlikely that a train could be constructed, tested and then recruit new drivers to drive the new train within one year.

Regarding the quote, (after reading it over several times) I guess it means that the train initially called at Bar then Foo (initial terminus), but was extended to Quux and stopped calling at Bar. JuniperChill (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Quarry quarry quarry

Fuente de Petróleos, a current Did You Know, says that the monument features a "quarry pillar", linking the word to our quarry article which is about quarries, the main source of building stone. In the sidebar it list "quarry" as the medium, again linking to the article, and later on it speaks of another part being made out of "quarry stone", linking for a third time so that we can again check what a quarry is and reassure ourselves that the stone wasn't found in a forest or the sea.

Would it be wrong of me to change all these to say stone, or is quarry a technical term in monumental sculpture?  Card Zero  (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion is to describe the pillar as "a pillar of quarried stone". This article on the fountains of Mexico City states for almost everything it describes that it is (de) cantera, so this aspect is, apparently, of some significance to Mexican culture. But there is no point in overlinking.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, cantera led me to es:Cantera#En_México where it says (translated) "In Mexico, a specific type of volcanic rock (volcanic tuff) characteristic of several regions of the country is also known as quarry." I edited the article accordingly, but couldn't steal the es wiki's references, because it has none.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Why does “the” imply totality here?

Consider the following two sentences.

”Four inner planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.”

“The four inner planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.”

Including the word “the” in the second sentence implies that the listed examples are the entirety of the set being discussed in a way that the first sentence does not. Why is this? Primal Groudon (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

See definite article and Definiteness for a start. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence feels quite unnatural anyway. --KnightMove (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Only if there's an implied "some" in front of it. As in, "three inner planets are Mercury, Venus and Earth". But while that sentence makes sense, it's also well nigh useless, being incomplete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It is easy, though, to create pairs of more natural sentences illustrating the issue.

• Two ships were lost in 1914.
• The two ships were lost in 1914.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 09:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Neologisms created during the COVID-19 pandemic

What are neologisms that are created during the COVID-19 pandemic? How can we discover what year these are coined? BeenThrough2003 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The date appears in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Sleigh (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The COVID-19 outbreak became a pandemic in February 2020. While the pandemic never ended, it was (IMO arbitrarily) officially declared to be no longer a "public health emergency" in May 2023. We have a Category:2020s neologisms, from "AI slop" to "Zoomergaze". Of these. "Coronials" (but I have not checked all) is related to the pandemic. The term "sus" in the sense "suspicious" was used since 2018 by players Among Us but became mainstream due to the pandemic.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lambiam Related to culture, technology, and World events? BeenThrough2003 (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

You can check the members of Category:2020s neologisms yourself.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

But see "Sus law", which was prominent in public discourse in the 1970s, though older in origin, and sus and "suss out" which have been part of my slang lexicon for decades. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

OED has "sus" as adjective or adverb meaning "Suspicious, distrustful. Usually with about, of.", "Liable to seem dubious, dishonest, or unreliable; suspicious, suspect", "In a suspicious manner. Usually modifying to act." with citations back to the 1950s, and the noun "sus" meaning "Suspicion of having committed a crime or of loitering with the intent to commit a crime. Also: the use of this suspicion as grounds for police action; the sus law (see sus law n.). Frequently in 'on sus. Frequently with reference to the policing of British inner cities using the sus law in the 1970s and early 1980s, esp. to disproportionate use of the law to stop, search, or detain members of the black population in these areas, regarded as police harassment. cited to 1936. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You might find this interesting: How to tell a covidiot from a maskhole: learning the language of the pandemic – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Influence of Urbanization on Language Change

Urban areas often bring together people from diverse linguistic backgrounds. How does this process of urbanization contribute to the development of new slang, dialects, or urban varieties of existing languages? Are there examples of specific cities where urbanization has noticeably shaped language, and what social or cultural factors drive these changes? TypeAndFish (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Some questions posed at the Wikipedia Reference desk sound just like homework assignments. Are the users posting these aware we won't do their homework for them? Bonus question: What distinguishes a homework assignment from other questions?  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just imagine what the OP could learn just by reading the OP's own linked articles! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The OP (now blocked as a sock), is not posting to obtain information, but apparently to test the knowledge of the responders, as is evident from their recent reply on a Misc desk thread. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

My impression is that it's just to make a point, push a certain conclusion with a loaded question. ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't myself get that impression; the questions seemed to me neutral and rather academic, as if posed by a lecturer to an undergraduate class. However, since they have now been blocked it's a dead issue unless and until they re-sock. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"Begun"

Can the participle begun be used as an adjective in English? Is the begun year correct? In Finnish, begun is translated as alkanut and alkanut vuosi is commonly used, such as Alkanut vuosi on ollut melko tavallinen. Would The begun year has been quite normal be correct in English? --40bus (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

No. 'Begun' is the past tense of a verb, not an adjective. A native English speaker would probably figure out what meaning was intended, but would not recognise this as correct usage. Indeed, it might well be used in a fictional narrative to mark the speech of a non-native, non-fluent speaker. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually it's the past participle, not the past tense. The past tense is "began". A participle is in some sense an adjective made from a verb. So you can say "the cathedral, begun in 1527, was completed in 1822", and "begun" does modify the noun "cathedral", just as an adjective would. I agree that 40bus's example sentence would not be accepted but I'm not quite sure why. --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Which would be the closest English translation of alkanut then, in these contexts? --40bus (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say "the current year" or "this year". If referring to a book you've been reading, you could say "my current book", but that could be understood as a book you're writing. Most would probably not try to use only one word, but say "the book I'm reading at the moment" or "the book I'm currently reading". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Or the more colloquial "my current read". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps ‘this past year,’ although that implies more ‘the last twelve months’ rather than ‘the period of time since the last New Years’.’ 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 04:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Possibly semantic, because I see it used in the context of things at risk of stopping, such as "the begun work" or "the begun talks," or that have already stopped, such as "destroyed the begun rebellion" or "pulled down the begun monastery". In "the begun year", the implication that the year might be curtailed makes it sound odd. We have begun a year, but we may have to cancel the whole project due to lack of interest.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@40bus: Collins defines it only as the past participle of the verb begin; same for Cambridge, Longmans and Merriam-Webster.

Oxford, as usual, likes to be secretive and different, and lists it as a verb and an adjective without revealing (without payment) what it means other than "that has begun, or has been begun".

I would say it cannot be used as an adjective, even though I'd guess what you intend to mean if you try to use it as one. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The question remains why "begun" cannot be used as an adjective, whereas for instance "painted" can, as in "the painted wall". Does the verb have to be transitive? wikt:begin calls it "ergative", with an example for transitive use which to me (non-native, so what do I know?) doesn't feel quite right. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It can be used as an adjective, like Trovatore said, because it's a participle. "The newly begun wall" isn't at all strange.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, but that's because it's part of the expression "newly begun", which some would prefer to hyphenate. We can't say "The begun wall". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@JackofOz: As I noted above, Oxford thinks we can, since 1483, although several other dictionaries don't. English dictionaries record usage, rather than prescribe it, but it still looks odd to me. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This reminds me of last month's question about "the come guest", which is clearly wrong while "the arrived guest" is possibly right. Here "the begun wall" is wrong while "the unfinished wall" is right. But why? What is this class of proscribed past participles? If, that is, it's even a coherent group and even to do with grammar.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This discussion always makes me think of "I...am to Padua come" from The Taming of the Shrew and "the still hour is come of the sea tumbling in harness" from "A Refusal to Mourn". Though I never remember the exact wording of either. --Trovatore (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"Why?" isn't really a meaningful question here. We can make up a rule after the fact that describes the pattern of use that we see, but we can't explain how it was that that pattern developed in the first place. Go back in time and start the English language over and there is no reason to expect the same outcome. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

In Finnish, it is possible to say Alkaneet ongelmat johtivat tehtaan sulkemiseen. Is it possible in English to say Begun problems led to closure of the factory? --40bus (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

It's possible, in the sense that there's no law prohibiting such an utterance. But listeners would not understand what you mean, and question you. Two issues: (a) it's weirdly unidiomatic, and (b) it's redundant, since any problems that have led to such an outcome must by definition have begun. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Apostrophisation in 18th century poetry

At church with meek and unaffected grace,

His looks adorn'd the venerable place;

Truth from his lips prevail'd with double sway,

And fools, who came to scoff, remain'd to pray.

That's an excerpt from Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village, pub. May 1770. It reminded me to wonder anew about the way the past tense verbs are abbreviated with an apostrophe showing where the missing letter e originally was. If the default pronunciation was to sound the -ed ending as a separate syllable, like in blessèd, I could understand the point of the typography. But was that actually the case in late 18th-century London? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I've just noticed the past tense verb "unaffected" in the first line. There the final syllable -ed is sounded. Could this have anything to do with why the other verbs are marked? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Apparently the shortening of the -ed suffix was in the process of change during the 18th century, to the dismay of prescriptavists such as Jonathan Swift who wrote: "Where by leaving out a vowel to save a syllable, we form so jarring a sound, and so difficult to utter, that I have often wondered how it could ever obtain".

See The Broadview Anthology of British Literature: Volume 3. Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

A good example (from the 17th century) is Book III of Paradise Lost, with forms like unblam'd, escap'd and detain'd next to unapproached, proved and lapsed. The scansion suggests that the vowel should not be elided in the latter three. But there is also an occurrence of incensed where the verse scans better with elision.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Kyrie elision. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still be considered an option in lyrics (and only slightly irritating) to have the syllable pronounced? E.g. if the second line were to become

His head adorned with a crown

(which could be ABBA rather than AABB) then the verse metrics would basically force the -ed to be pronounced as a separate syllable. -- ~2026-18295-20 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Program & Project

What's the diffrence between the word "program" and the word "project"? Ataled (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

A program(me) is bigger than a project. A program(me) consists of several projects, either running concurrently or consecutively. --Viennese Waltz 06:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The difference is not always clear cut. It is not hard to also find instances of something called a "program(me)" being described as part of something called a "project". Not only Wikipedia, but also NASA, uses the terms "Project Apollo" and "Apollo program" interchangeably; this interchangeability is likewise seen for many other projects described on the Web, often with the terms uses synonymously within the same paragraph or even sentence.

Most projects/program(me)s have some goal and also some phased execution. I suspect it is more likely for such an endeavour to be referred to as "Project XYZ" or "the XYZ project" when name givers primarily have its goal in mind, and "the XYZ program" when they are more occupied with thinking of how it will be executed.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

"It is not hard to also find instances of something called a "program(me)" being described as part of something called a "project"." Such as the Manhattan Project feed materials program within the larger Manhattan Project. In fact, Viennese Waltz's opposite formulation seems decidedly odd to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Here are a few cases of projects being called "part of" a program(me): , , , , .  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it an America vs rest of the Anglosphere thing, then? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast usage in the BrE-sphere either. However, as a Brit, to me 'project' somewhat implies a broad effort towards an eventual goal, and 'program[me]' (in this context*) somewhat implies a more tightly planned operation focussed on achieving a particular outcome that might be a component within a project. However, they can both be their own entirity, and one or the other could be applied to similar enterprises.

(* As most will know, BrE also uses 'program' specifically to mean a computer program, and programme to mean a radio or TV broadcast, or a printed introduction to and description of an artistic performance about to be presented.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

English indirect speech

Is it possible in indirect speech to have the verb in main clause in past tense and the verb in dependent clause in present tense? Is it possible to say like Kate said that she is happy? In Finnish, it is usually said Kate sanoi, että hän on iloinen. Using past tense Kate sanoi, että hän oli iloinen implies that Kate is no longer happy. Does English ever use present tense in cases where Kate is still happy? --40bus (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

You could realistically say something like, “Kate said that she was happy,” and have it imply neither that she is still happy or that she is no longer happy; it leaves it sort of ambiguous. I think it’s because if Kate said it in the past, you would say that she “said” it, past tense, regardless of whether she is still happy. So then the next past-tense-able word, ‘is,’ sort of got lumped into the same tense as the ‘said’ colloquially and became ‘was’ even if Kate is still happy. That’s just my personal theory, however, and I don’t know if anyone knows for sure why it’s that way. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 08:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess there are situations where "is" could be used when it is implied that the state of mind that is described continues at the current time, and the statement does not refer to a single point of time in the past. E.g. a conversation could be like: Do you think that Kate has been a bit stressed and depressed since she's got her new job? ---- I don't think so. Kate said [just yesterday] that she is happy [in her new role]- But native speakers could overrule me. -- ~2026-18999-60 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

As a native British English speaker I can confirm the preceding answer. In reported speech, both the tense and the person are changed, but that does not preclude use of the present tense if the the thing referred to still applies at the time of reporting. That said, if Kate said "I shall be happy on Friday", then on Friday I would report "Kate said that she would be happy today" (and not "is"). It would be easier and clearer if we quoted Kate verbatim, but that's not how it's done in English. catslash (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

A few examples:

• They said he is theirs
• George W. Hennerich [...] said he is immensely grateful [...].
• J. B. Griffin [...] said he is "greatly alarmed [...]."

‑‑Lambiam 16:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Some languages use mostly absolute time for their dependent clauses, some use mostly relative time, relative to the time of the clause they depend on. It seems English is mostly absolute. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue that the phrasing "Kate has said that she is happy" would sound more natural, but I guess it's not a constant choice. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic cases

Does Scottish Gaelic have accusative/nominative/dative/et cetera cases like Latin does? If so, how are they created/used? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 08:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

No accusative. See Scottish Gaelic grammar. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Émile MacZola: I nae accuse! Clarityfiend (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Alternative transliterations for زادشم (Persian)

I've been trying to find sources for the page Zadashm, one of the kings in the Shahnameh. I've been flummoxed by the multiple transliterations or versions of names, such as Turaj for Tur (Shahnameh) and Afrasyab for Afrasiab. What are the other spellings for this one? SenshiSun (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)