Hi,

I have a question about the idiom on board. More specifically, my question has to do with how it should be capitalized when used in the titles of books, etc.

Some people seem to capitalize both the O and B as in Life On Board a Cruise Ship. Others seem to only capitalize the B as in Noise Levels on Board Ships. Then, there are others who do not capitalize either letter as in Safety Signs on board Ship. So, I am curious if there is one preferred way. Thanks in advance-Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third look acceptable to me (depending on your capitalisation of headings convention). The second looks misleading and I'm surprised that it was ever used. Dbfirs 08:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dbfirs. I also think the second one is strange, but it is actually something I often see used in materials (research papers, rules, regulations, etc.) I come across at work. A lot of the stuff I see using it comes out of the UK/Europe so I am wondering if it is a British English thing. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second parses as if it is referring to noise that occurs on ships belonging to Board. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the case if only 'board' were capitalised (suggesting it to be a proper noun). However, because title case is being employed, either of the first two examples would be more common (and to me, better) than the third example. Because the third example breaks typical title case, it more strongly implies that 'Ship' is to be considered a proper noun, which is kind of awkward.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I regard "on board" as a complex preposition, but we all agree that the first example is valid. Dbfirs 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, and none of them are really 'wrong'. But many style guides capitalise prepositions when using title case, especially if they're longer than 2 or 3 letters. If prepositions were strictly uncapitalised, the first example would be Life on board a Cruise Ship, which to me kind of misses the point of title case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistent on Board is wrong. It is a complex preposition as noted, and the two words should be either both upper or lower case, depending on context. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not objectively 'wrong'. It is only 'wrong' if the particular style guide is using the rule you're asserting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who replied. No. 1 On Board seems the most natural to me, but I do see No. 2 used quite a bit (probably more than Nos. 1 and 3) in official documents, etc. I use at work so I am always a little unsure when I come across it. I understand that some guides say not to capitalize two-letter prepositions in titles, etc., but I always see on board as a single set expression and not two separate words. That's why I always find No. 2 confusing. Oh well, it is good to know it is not a British/American English thing. Is there a Wikipedia rule on this? Which option would be preferred for Wikipedia articles? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. Wikipedia article titles and section headings use sentence case, so if it were an article here is would be "Noise levels on board ships". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roger- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the consonant "ch" (like in the word chips) in the past sounded the same as it sounds today or it sounded like the consonant "sh" (like in the word she)? I'd like to get some information about the history of this Spanish consonant. 194.114.146.227 (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check History of Spanish#Vocalization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "ch" (/tʃ/ in IPA notation) sound evolved from Hispano- (or Iberian-) Romance sometime before the Old Spanish period as it was already present in the language when it began to be "standardized" in the 13th century. As Bugs mentions above, medial -ch- results from vocalization and consequential palatalization: Latin "multu" > I.R. "muito" > Old Spanish "mucho". I don't recall offhand the origin of initial "ch". An interesting read is this 1997 dissertation by David Eric Holt. Additionally in some areas of the Spanish speaking world, the process has taken another step called lenition where /tʃ/ ("ch") is pronounced /ʃ/ "sh". I hear this especially in the Northern Mexican varieties I frequently encounter.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There would likely have been a transitional, unstable stage where muito went to muitʲo then to (perhaps more stable) muitʃo then finally to the present mutʃo. However, those shifts would have occurred between about A.D. 400 and 1000, since when that phoneme has probably been stable in Castilian. There were other consonants (represented in written Spanish by j, x, z, g, s, c, and ll), that have undergone more recent change since the Old Spanish stage. Marco polo (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Spanish of the 16th or 17th centuries, the letter "x" often meant [ʃ], as still in the Spanish-influenced writing systems of the Basque language and several American Indian languages today... AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As implied above, there's no attested time at which ch in early or common Castillian represented the sound of sh in English--that was represented by x as in Basque and Catalan. Note that the sound did not only originate from an -lt- sequence, but many sources. I once had a Mexican friend with black ancestry who had a very wide, flat nose, whose nickname was Chato. It turns out this is the Spanish reflex of a Latin borrowing of the Greek name Plato, which means "broad". μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is "zero(-)length launcher" a device, or rather a whole "family" of devices, used to launch missiles, unmanned aircraft, rockets, etc. The "zero length" part of the name refers to the fact that the object being launched does not travel along the length of the launch mechanism before it is released into free flight. Think of a rocket departing from a launch pad versus a rocket travelling in a tube or along a ramp or rail for some distance before transitioning into free flight. The launch-pad rocket is in free flight the moment it lifts off, as it is no longer in contact with/supported by the pad as soon as it moves. By contrast the tube/ramp/rail launcher supports the rocket for a short distance as it departs. Now after all that technical waffle comes the question: should "zero(-)length launcher" have a hyphen or not. Sources seem to be about evenly divided so are of no real help, so I'm appealing to "The Rules of English Grammar and Spelling(tm)" ;) for a "definitive" answer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should have a hyphen.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. See Hyphen#Compound modifiers. It's pretty straightforward and definitive.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi all, Could someone provide a translation for the text, presumably in Arabic, displayed in this image?

Thanks in advance, decltype (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common Arabic saying to stress the importance of hygiene and cleanliness. It basically translates to "Cleanliness is Part of Your Faith".

A Google search of the phrase in English mainly leads you to pages discussing hygiene and its importance in Islam. _{Hia10 (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I came up with the following transcription:

النّظافَة مِنَ الإيمان

decltype (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the transcription is accurate. By the way, I remembered that there is an equivalent proverb in English: "Cleanliness is next to Godliness". This would be a perfect translation of the Arabic saying. _{Hia10 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks again! decltype (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]