April 8

So, some languages read and write from left-to-right. English and many other languages. Some languages (I think Arabic?) do things in the opposite manner, from right-to-left. So I have two questions. (1) For the languages that do it from right-to-left, do they also start their books at the end of the book (what we would normally consider the last page) and move "backward"? In other words, let's say an American book were numbered from Page 1 to Page 100. Would the right-to-left language progress just as an English book normally would, from Page 1 to Page 100? Or would it "start" at the "end" on Page 100 and work "backward" to Page 1? (2) Second question: Is there any ergonomic reason -- if that's the right word -- for which books are written one way or the other? Or psychological reason? Or cognitive reason? Etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic and Hebrew are two languages whose written sentences proceed from right to left across the page. One of my interests is learning to read Hebrew so that I can translate and better understand "difficult" passages in the Hebrew Bible. To that end, several years ago I bought a hard copy of the Stone Edition Tanach (online version), which presents the Hebrew Bible text on each right hand page and an English translation of it on each left hand page. The book is "back to front" from a Western perspective. When laid on a table, the title cover is what we would regard as the back cover; that is, with the name of the book face up, the spine of the book is to the right and it's easiest to flip the cover and the pages to the right with the right hand to proceed through the book from the foreword to the chapters. Each Hebrew page starts at the top, (not the bottom), the same as in Western style books, except that it proceeds from the right hand margin. To this Westerner, it was a little disconcerting on first purchasing the book, to open it and find that one was looking at the "Z" entries in the index. Akld guy (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hebrew and Arabic books go "right to left": e.g. [1] [2] shows two books' front covers. Not only that; as our article on Israeli passports says, these "are opened from their right end and their pages are arranged from right to left" -- often confusing European border controllers, in my experience as a holder of one. The same is stated in our article on Egyptian passports.

But this isn't limited to RTL languages like Arabic and Hebrew. Manga books are flipped right-to-left, too; and the panels on a page are aligned right-to-left, even if the text inside each panel goes left-to-right. --51.9.188.46 (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, Chinese was written top-to-bottom, then right-to-left. So Chinese books which are printed in the traditional direction still open at the right. Modern practice is mixed between this and left-to-right, top-to-bottom writing. Writing direction is similarly mixed amongst Japanese books. See Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been an ergonomic reason at least for writing Chinese right-to-left top-to-bottom. Originally, Chinese "books" were strips of cut along bamboo stems, which were sewn together like a window bamboo covering (I even do not know if there is a specific word for such a thing). So you imagine that if you scroll in and out a Chinese bamboo book from left-to-right with your right hand, you would have some difficulties in both writing and scrolling. So you scroll in and out right-to-left with your left hand and write with your right hand, and thus obviously the writing direction would be right-to-left top-to-bottom.

I suppose it worked for papyri and parchment scroll books as well, so it may explain why in the Middle East they have been writing this way. Though I'm not sure why Greeks and Romans changed the direction, probably their books were scrolled rather in the top-to-bottom direction.

To add another example. In South Asia a traditional writing material for books was palm leaves, but unlike China, they were sewn together like in a modern library card index cabinet (I hope you imagine this).

So in both South Europe and South Asia it was more naturally to write left-to-right.

Note also that even when books became different (rather sewn together leaves than scrolls), the cultural inertia was too strong to change the direction in the right-to-left writing systems to a more natural way.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's only natural if the writer places the bamboo strips vertically. I see no difficulties writing horizontally (in either direction) on a bamboo scroll, if the strips are horizontal and the scrolling is vertical. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they might do that, but they didn't (or they did only sometimes; I'm not sure). We cannot say for sure why, but I suppose: (1) They did not write on an already sewn book, but strip by strip, holding a strip in the left hand vertically and writing with the right one. When a book was ready, the strips were sewn vertically. (2) If it was sewn horizontally and scrolled vertically, the unscrolled book cylinder of a large book might be quite bulky and bothering being directly in front of the reader, but it is just my suggestion.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do British people use "chemist" for pharmacist? If chemist refers to a pharmacist, then who is that guy who studies and works with chemicals in a research laboratory? What about pharmaceuticals or drugs? Is there a difference between how British people use "chemist" and "apothecary"? What about a druggist or drug dealer? Do they mean anything in British speech? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster says one of the Definitions of chemist is "2 British : pharmacist" --Jayron32 12:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find many British people ever using the word "apothecary", unless perhaps they're in a play. "Druggist" is not really ever used; "drug dealer" is quite common but has nothing to do with medicine, of course. I suspect that the word "chemist" when used to mean "pharmacy" started out with a possessive 's just like baker's, butcher's and candlestick-maker's etc. But was dropped for easier pronunciation. See also "the newsagent", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (p.s. we don't ever use "drug-store" either).[reply]

"Chemist", when used to refer to "pharmacist", is usually used in relation to the store (pharmacy - "chemist's"), isn't it? A person who is a pharmacist is almost certainly going to state their profession as "pharmacist", rather than "chemist".

A chemist, as in a scientist working in chemistry, is certainly called a "chemist". If they feel the need to be clear, they might say something like "research chemist". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the shop is the chemist. The person behind the counter who is qualified to dispense drugs is a pharmacist. We have industrial chemists and chemical engineers as well as research chemists. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boots UK was for many years officially called "Boots the Chemist" but never "Boots the Pharmacist." Until relatively recently high street chemists were able to offer other services that included photographic developing, which required the use of special chemicals. Some degree of disambiguation is possible in British English by use of the term “dispensing chemist” and the establishment may also be called "a dispensary." Within hospitals and medical centres the term "Pharmacy" is much more commonly used. Even on the high street, the person dispensing the drugs will often be referred to as a pharmacist, especially with recent changes in the law that allow pharmacists to offer advice to customers on medical matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as the people are concerned, a chemist works in the scientific discipline of chemistry, a pharmacists dispenses your medication, and a drug dealer sells you cocaine and heroin. An apothecary used to sell and prescribe medications as well - but the term is no longer in common use, except in a historical context. The shop where you get your medication - and a lot of other things as well is either a chemist or a pharmacy. We don't tend to use the expression "drug store" - though would probably recognise it from the TV. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the shop can also be called "the chemist's". And it's perfectly in British English to say "I had a word with the chemist" meaning the pharmacist, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By a strange coincidence, last night I finished reading The Backwash of War (1916) by

Ellen LaMotte, an American nurse in France in the First World War. Her book, presumably intended for publication in the US (it was banned in the UK during the war), in a story about a traffic accident in Paris, uses the phrase "The sobbing boy was led into a chemist's." obviously meaning a pharmacy. It struck me as odd that an American would use that term - perhaps they used it a hundred years ago and have since changed their minds. Who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Alansplodge: did you know google ngrams can search by AmEng or BrEng corpora (and others, all, etc.)? This [3] shows that for a good bit of time "chemist's" was more used that "pharmacist". Granted, some of those mentions could be about the chemist's tools, but it's still an interesting start. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That old villain polysemy strikes again! Seriously, it's completely OK to have the same word refer to a pharmacist and a professor. British English can be a little confusing if you don't speak it, that is also fine. But this is nothing special to BrEng—you probably don't have a problem understanding that I mean different things when I talk about the crane I saw at the pond, compared to the crane (machine) that I saw building a skyscraper downtown. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately we don't have cranes of the flying type in the UK any more. However, the reappearance of the kite has caused some confusion. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bird was a chemist (and druggist!). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are cranes in Somerset. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back, there seem to be about 50 of them. I haven't come across one yet. Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in New South Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

One of the

OED's citations s.v. "pharmacist" is from Rev. Brit. Pharmacy in 1898: "The Pharmacopœia, generally a stickler in legality, speaks of ‘pharmacists’, which, strictly speaking, chemists and druggists are not." --ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Nostalgic aside — one of my favorite shows as a kid was Hogan's Heroes. There was a character named Carter who was a "chemist", but at least in the beginning, this seemed to be a misunderstanding due to information passed through a British serviceman; Carter had actually worked in a drugstore (and apparently not in a role that required specialized knowledge). Quickly enough, though, that was forgotten, and he was the camp's chemical MacGyver, able to work miracles with whatever substances were available. --Trovatore (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

My Google Fu is letting me down. In the past, I had encountered a list of countries by the average number of languages its citizens speak. I'd like to find that list again, but most search attempts are telling me about the language diversity in the country without giving me any info on the number of languages spoken per person. I'm especially interested in countries where the average person speaks 3 or more languages. As I recall, there are handful of such countries in Europe. Does anyone know where I can find a list of average number of languages spoken per person? Dragons flight (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can offer you a map for Europe...https://jakubmarian.com/average-number-of-languages-spoken-by-the-eu-population/ Lectonar (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you only interested in Europe? I don't have stats to hand, but I would expect certain countries in East and West Africa, and some states in India, and parts of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, would have a high proportion of multilingual people. Spoken proficiency may well differ from literacy, of course. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd prefer to do more than Europe actually. I only mentioned Europe above as an anecdote that I remembered, but I'd prefer a global context. Dragons flight (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this (journalistic, not academic) article: Aruba, Singapore, Malaysia, Mauritius, South Africa, India, Luxembourg, Suriname, East Timor. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used to teach in a secondary school in Congo - all of my students spoke at least three languages (their own tribal one, the local lingua franca, and French). Some spoke four or five. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal observational anecdote here: Much of the
  Bay Islands Creole among themselves, uses English as a lingua franca and for business use, especially in tourism, and everyone is mandated to learn Spanish in schools. --Jayron32 18:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

List of multilingual countries and regions can provide you some links. But this source, as many other, do not seem to distinguish between social and personal multilingualism. I don't know which country would be the winner, but if I had to bet, I would probably choose something like Nigeria. For the EU all I could find is | this map. Llaanngg (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polyglot may be of interest. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I always thought that meant a parrot that speaks multiple languages.... KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 17:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider when an action (verb) occurred in the past, but is written in the present tense. Is there a specific name for this? Here is a "made-up" example. The following events occurred in 1928: Gregory Peck wins the Academy Award; Japan attacks Pearl Harbor; Nixon resigns as President; etc. Presumably those verbs should be in the past tense. But they are often written in the present tense. Is there some name for this? And, also, what's the reason/rationale to list a past event in the present tense? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Historical present. Deor (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia timelines are written in this tense, although there seems to be no agreement within our community about this. Alansplodge (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another name for this use of the tense is the "narrative present". This is the use that I see most - for telling a story. It could be an anecdote, a joke, a tale, or a historical incident. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another variant that seems stubbornly persistent is what I've seen called the "gratuitous present perfect".

• Three guys go in to bar. The first one has gone "I'll shout first. What do you two want?". The second one has replied "I'll have a gallon of green chartreuse, thanks". But before the third one can say what he wants, the first two have suddenly turned and left the bar without a word. Etc.

I hate it, hate it, hate it. But I'm swamped by people using it all the time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing happens in my dialect. I don't know if it happens in others, where the third person singular present indicative is used even for the first person. Eg: "So I goes into this bar...." KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That also occurs in Newfoundland English (but this is a very different thing, not the historical present). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of the have-perfect is often a sign of a non-native; in French, for example, that construction is much more usual (except in written narrative) than the 'simple' past tense. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this seems to be particularly prevalent amongst managers of English football teams when being interviewed post-match. My conjecture is that when recounting events in the match, they are visualizing them mentally (or sometimes watching a video replay), and thus the events seem momentarily to be happening in the present. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.67 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Football Manager's Tense which is descrbed in that article as "the active present perfect" tense. Alansplodge (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's another name for the "gratuitous present perfect" mentioned above. Down here it's used by commentators on all sports, all police officers, and many people telling a story, joke, something that's recently happened etc. Except me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a habit picked up from Latin, where it was used extensively in storytelling and oratory as a means to make the scene more vivid. This is what my Latin teacher told me. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on that, KageTora. Sounds like classicist's hubris. I'm sure it's widely used throughout the historical and geographical spread of English. Shakespeare even switches between past and present in consecutive sentences in the same narrative (eg The Tempest, II 1: "Me poor man, my library was dukedom large enough. Of temporal royalties he thinks me now incapable ... "). --ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare came a long time after Latin. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 19:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin connection is clearly mentioned in Historical present, which was the first thing linked above. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I am first introduced to Damon Runyon I find his writing difficult to understand. He hardly uses a past tense in his life. Rarely a future tense, either, truth be known. But quite naturally, and soon, I find that things become clear, and I do not miss the inflections. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]