Language desk
< October 1	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 3 >

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.

October 2

The tail at the end of a "u" and "t"

I was wondering what linguistic/typographical term described the little flourish at the end of a "u" in some fonts (not when you make it like a smile, but with the little thing at the end to make sure people don't confuse it with v). I've gathered that it may be called a minim but that seems to be the general term describing any downstroke of the pen.

Also, is there a name for the thing at the end of "t" -- the flourish that distinguishes it from † (a cross)? Thanks, Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

serif? —Nricardo 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not what I'm referring to. You could draw a lower-case u like this, but I'm referring to the thing that makes this lower-case one different. When you hand-write it, usually there's a little curve that comes off it. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nricardo is correct. The typographical term for the little curve coming off the second 'u' or the curve on a t is most definitely a serif. --JayHenry 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetica is generally considered a sans-serif typeface, but nevertheless has these thingies – although I wouldn't call them flourishes. --Lambiam 05:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that all the fonts on the List of Sans Serif typefaces have those "things"; thus the things are not likely called serif. Perhaps the things are in fact an organic part of the minim in "u" and "t", not "flourishes" for them; and it's the thing-less "u" and "t" which are fanciful.--K.C. Tang 06:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futura (typeface) does not have the "things" on u and t. I've looked up all manner of interesting terms like "beards" "beaks" and so on, but none seem to apply exactly to those "things". They are not "tails" or "hooks" either, it seems. I would agree with Nricardo that they are serifs, and that "sans serif" is thus a comparative term! SaundersW 11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, this page, albeit somewhat vaguelly, confirms that "minim" is the term that can be used for the thingo. Duja► 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the curve at the bottom of a "t", I've heard "hook". The thing on a "u" -- which is not present on the screen font I'm typing this in -- looks like a serif to me too. --Anon, 13:19 UTC, October 2, 2007.

Comparison of the letter "u"

I've uploaded a picture of what I think the differences are between serifs and what I'm referring to. I believe the thing on the left (Times New Roman) has a serif at the end of the thing I'm talking about, the thing in the middle (Helvetica) has no serifs and does have the things I'm talking about, and the thing on the right has no serifs and does not have the thing I"m referring to (Futura). I believe there is a difference between serifs and this thing. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Complete Manual of Typography by James Felici (Berkeley (2003): Peachpit Press, ISBN 0-321-12730-7) it's called a terminal. His definition of terminal is: "The end of a character stroke, which may or may not be adorned with a serif", and the illustration is of the hook at the bottom of a lower-case t, which most typefaces (both serif and sans-serif) have, but Futura (for example) doesn't. —An gr 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Serifs should be at an angle [1]. Not strictly a "hook" for the "t" as that is a different component [2], although as a description here it's understandable. Bazza 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal sounds like the definition I'm looking for. I'll go with hook, too. Thanks a lot. (The discussion sprang from a math class where the textbook was referring to

{\vec {t}}

,

{\vec {u}}

, and

{\vec {v}}

(vectors t, u and v) and it was confusing because the t could be mistaken with a plus sign, and the u – if drawn without its terminal, could look like the v. We then got into a fun discussion about what those thingies added to the u and t were called.) --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I hadn't had the benefit of this thread, I'd call the right vertical of u a stem, like the left vertical of n. —Tamfang 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopi question

Is there anyone here with access to a dictionary or other resources on the Hopi language? It's claimed that "Hakomi" means "How do you stand in relation to these many realms?", but I'm skeptical and would like confirmation. (See Talk:Hakomi.) --Alivemajor 09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not fix your computer.

Hi, I ran into this sentence the other day.

I'll not fix your computer.
I will not fix your computer.
- Would you say the two sentences are equivalent? I'm asking because for me, the first one sounds as if the speaker has specifically made up his mind to tell someone that he won't fix the computer even though he can.
No, I'll not fix your computer.
- And I think this sentence is very funny, because to me, the "not fix" sounds like it doesn't go well with "No,". What do you think? --Kjoonlee 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds fine to me, though I would say "No, I won't fix your computer." Corvus cornix 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: I tried searching for "No, I'll not" on Google, and found only old texts, mostly. But I did find "No, I'll not even think about doing that." Somehow, this sentence sounds OK. What do you think, and why do you think so? I'd appreciate some comments/insights. Thank you! --Kjoonlee 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get different answers depending on who you ask, but "I'll not fix your computer" is practically impossible in my dialect (Middle Atlantic, USA), and I would never write it that way in my own voice. Given the words involved, "I won't" is normal, and "I will not" is extraordinarily emphatic. --Milkbreath 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly normal form of expression among the Scots and, I imagine, some other groups. -- JackofOz 21:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. It's just using a different contraction of "I will not". --LarryMac | Talk 22:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it sounds wrong if used in normal discourse with a neutral tone of voice. I'd always go for "I won't fix your computer", never *"I'll not...". However, "I'll not" can be used in ironic or sarcastic-sounding statements when the "not" is strongly stressed: "I'll not fix your computer". I'd say this is purely colloquial, however, and would not be used in any sort of writing. (Mid-Atlantic US dialect) Macnas 22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you wanted to get technical about it, "shall" goes with first-person pronouns and "will" goes with 2nd and 3rd, so it would be, "I'll not…" and "I shan't…," and then you get into the whole deal where nobody even says "shan't" anymore, so who knows. It's not wrong to say "I'll not," but I'd say more people say "I won't." They are equivalent, though. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I was originally taught, in English, the long form of answering yes/no questions: "yes, I will do it" / "no, I won't do it" seemed to me to be compulsory. Also answering "what is your name?" with "my name is JIP" seemed compulsory. Keep in mind that I was ten years old and English was the first language other than Finnish I had ever been exposed to. This caused an experience I shall probably never forget. On a class trip to Italy, Italian children asked, in English, what is my name. I replied as above, which caused them to laugh a lot. Only later, when watching M.A.S.K. cartoons on TV, did I find out that yes, in English, it is just as possible to reply with your name only just as in Finnish. JIP | Talk 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a useful remark for me, as an ESOL teacher, to bear in mind, lol! I always strive to let my students (adults) know that, of course, in "normal' conversation, one tends to answer succintly, if not lazily. But getting learners to answer fully is simply good practice for the grammar. "What's his name? His name is George. What's her name? Her name is Lisa." etc etc. Students who are only taught the "natural" responses will have a hard time producing the full forms when they need them. As for the "yes, I will do it" stuff -- I prefer to get people to absorb the "1,23 pattern, as in "Yes, I will", "No I won't. If anything, I find it hard to break people from the habit of answering with unnecessary information, as in "what did you do last night? I watched TV last night." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.62.134 (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with it. It's not functionally any different from "I'll never fix your computer" - simply replacing "never" with "not". I agree that it's not as common, but it's perfectly valid and understandable.

origin of the word unique

I have looked everywhere trying to find the historical origins of the word unique. When did it first come into use? Is it derived from a Latin word. How long has the word been in use etc.. Can you please help? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.5.54 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed duplicate of this post -Elmer Clark 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster states that it came from the Latin unicus via French. Regarding how long it's been in use, it says:

Unique dates back to the 17th century but was little used until the end of the 18th when, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was reacquired from French. H. J. Todd entered it as a foreign word in his edition (1818) of Johnson's Dictionary, characterizing it as "affected and useless." Around the middle of the 19th century it ceased to be considered foreign and came into considerable popular use.

-Elmer Clark 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's from French, unique, from Latin, unicus, with a similar meaning, from unus, "one". The OED has its first appearance in 1602, with our present spelling. "Unic" is seen around the same time straight from the Latin. --Milkbreath 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]