Why in 19th century book covers or sheet music have full stops just after short phrases or titles, such as the "Meno mosso." in ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikespedia (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not just in German, either. I don't know why, but it's a practice that continued into the 20th century and his since faded. Comiskey Park used to say "Home of the White Sox." with that period at the end,[1] which was dropped over time when the park would get repainted from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was common in the mid-19th century for people to put a period after everything. A store sign might say "DRY GOODS." for example. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the "why" of it at this point would be speculative. Maybe the rise in literacy made folks feel compelled to put a punctuation mark at the end of every complete thought, even if it wasn't a sentence. And it wasn't just with sheet music. Newspaper headlines read that way also. Papers of the day might have several heading lines for one article, each a little smaller and more detailed than the previous, leading the reader toward the story - and with a period at the end of each of the little headlines, whether they were proper sentences or not. I can get a sampling of this from a 1970s book called The Scrapbook History of Baseball, which is a collection of newspaper articles reprinted as if they were cut and pasted into a scrapbook. This continued into the 20th century. Here's an example from late September of 1908, illustrating the Fred Merkle incident. It also illustrates the editorializing that routinely turned up in news stories - and this was written by the Chicago writer, Charles Dryden. Caps and punctuation reproduced exactly, except for [my comments] inserted, and each sentence is a different headline: GAMES ENDS IN TIE [separate line] MAY GO TO CUBS. "Bush League" Baserunner [Merkle] Costs Giants a 2 to 1 Victory in the Ninth. DISPUTE UP TO PULLIAM. [National League President] Chicago Claims Forfeit on Account of Interference; O'Day [umpire] Says "No Contest." Standings of the Clubs. [standings follow] BY CHARLES DRYDEN. [story follows - with several little embedded headlines, all ending with periods.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the book is "anecdotal", it's hard to tell precisely how the practice changed, but within a few years, true headlines were generally omitting the periods, and the periods were only being used with sub-headlines that were complete sentences. By about 1920, even the complete-sentence sub-headlines were generally omitting the periods. Newswriting by the 1910s was getting to be much "punchier" and modern vs. the stodgy writing style of the 19th century, and that may have fed into this change over time. The last example I'm seeing of using the period at the end of a sub-headline was in 1938. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there was a pretty clear purpose to the full-stops when headlines were written as nearly-complete sentences: they separated one sentence from another. It's true that typography (size, font and weight) do all that now, but it's also true that earlier headlines and sub-headlines were often stacked over four, six or ten lines. The reason is clear, even if different reasons are applied today. The more interesting question is why titles and names on signs used to be followed by periods/full-stops when the names or titles ("Main Street.", "The Royal Crown.", "Post Office.", "Fine Groceries.", "The Raven.", even newspapers' own logos, such as the "The Wall Street Journal.") were clearly not full sentences. I think that some of my teachers in primary/elementary school in London and New England in the 1950's told us to put a full-stop/period at the end of a title. If you're writing in manuscript and not centering or underlining your titles (or if the title takes up a whole line), a closing stop helps to distinguish the title from the beginning of the first sentence; it also introduces the spoken or mental pause that follows a title. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Bill O'Reilly says "with all due respect..." just before he rips into a guest, I feel as if he ought to say, "with all undue respect..." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were also told in school to capitalize all the words in a title except for articles and conjunctions (unless they were the first word of the title). Now we've gone to the other extreme, capitalizing the first word only except for proper names, as if the title were a sentence. Maybe wikipedia should revive the practice of adding periods to those kinds of phrases. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that in O'Reilly's opinion little respect is due, and that's how much he gives. —Tamfang (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, when did the prescriptivist stance that you only put a full stop after a complete sentence arise? Or was the idea always there, and simply not paid attention to by anyone? Were there any early writers who would consistently put a full stop after a complete sentence only? --84.239.160.214 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the second example above, the stops actually convey useful information I didn't have before. We all refer to "The Washington Post March", which plays along with the credits at the end of the film, All the President's Men. But the sheet music shows that the title was "The Washington Post", and that it was a march (and not, say, a waltz or a polka). —— Shakescene (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Washington Post (march) discusses that, and it's true that the periods erase any question that the title is simply "The Washington Post". However, "March" being on a separate line and in smaller print also conveys that point. Also notice that everything else has a period after it also, including "Sousa." Styles change, and it's often easier to track the "when" than the "why". I have a photo of my company's building from ca. 1910 that shows its name in big bold letters - followed by a period. Just one of those things that no one questioned, apparently. Like when did people stop the common practicing of writing "&c." and begin write "etc." all the time, despite the fact they are precisely the same thing - while continuing to use "&" (stylized "et") for "and"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Declaration of Independence ends its first line with a period, even though the title is centered. Curiously, the second line ends in a comma. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be of interest to note that many people in China learning English are taught to (or at least they all pick up the habit of) write a period/full stop at the end of individual words -- for example, if they're writing out a single English word (or possibly even their name in English), they put a full stop at the end. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would put the words into context: that of music. having had an Italian music teacher, Miss Pecorini, for ten years as a teacher, I know that these short command phrases were in vogue at her time-she was 65/70 years old- and maybe at the time of the music sheet itself. learning to play the piano is guided by short terse statements from a teacher or written commands on the script. It would be no different than instructions on a road or in the air- complexity confuses the situation. the periods may mark a stop from one command to the next.--91.125.97.141 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MEANING OF £ IS ?MRLuCkY7777 (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pound sterling. Karenjc 11:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historically the same symbol was also used for the Italian lira and for other countries' pounds (major currency units): Australia, Ireland etc. -Ehrenkater (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "libra", meaning "scales" or "weight". A number of terms for money, in various languages, use words that have to do with weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the two meanings of "pound" (lb and £) aren't coincidence? Vimescarrot (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not a coincidence. The Spanish coin called the peso also means "weight". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shekel also means 'equivalence,' as in weighing. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on a £5 £20 note, you will see that some guy's signature is there, along with the promise 'to pay the bearer five pounds of gold' - although this promise is never fulfilled because the Bank Of England wouldn't have enough gold to pay everyone if we all asked at the same time --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And presumably not literally 5 pounds of pure gold, but of cold coins? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very possibly, but considering gold coins are actually made of gold, I don't think it really matters. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And considering that the pound is a unit of force and not of mass, they could give a very tiny amount of gold and say that it weighs a pound on the surface of the sun (I haven't seen that piece of currency myself, but I bet it doesn't specify '5 pounds near the surface of the earth.')20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice theory, but unfortunately pound really is a unit of mass. There is indeed a derived unit of force, however the primary meaning of pound is a unit of mass. — Emil J. 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Promissory note. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the promise to pay holders of the £20 note 5 pounds of gold, but I do know that originally, in late medieval and Elizabethan times, a pound sterling was equivalent to a pound of sterling silver. It was a unit of account. A person might have an assortment of silver coins. I don't think that there were even £1 coins because they would have been too heavy. However, the value of those silver coins was in their weight. They would be weighed, and their value measured in pounds. It was only later in the modern era (perhaps as recently as the early 20th century; I don't have time right now to check) that the value of a pound sterling (as a unit of currency) became separated from the value of a pound (unit of weight) of sterling silver. Marco polo (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is contained in our article on the gold standard. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a silver £1 coin. As you say, it would be very heavy. They tried to make £1 coins using the equivalent value of gold, but the relative values of gold and silver kept changing so it was rarely worth exactly £1 (see Guinea (coin)). --Tango (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a couple of points: as Marco says, when a pound sterling was worth a pound weight of precious metal, the metal was silver, not gold. Therefore KageTora's memory of the wording "pounds of gold" is wrong. It could conceivably be "pounds in gold" (referring to pounds of monetary value) but from my own memory it's just "pounds".

Also, it was not a pound avoirdupois (the one still used in some countries, 7000 grains or about 454 g) nor was it a pound troy (5760 grains, 144/175 of a pound avoirdupois, or about 373 g). It was the still smaller pound in the "Tower weight" system. Russ Rowlett's web site says this was 5400 grains, 27/35 of a pound avoirdupois, or about 350 g. Wikipedia says at pound sign that it was 326 g, but at pound (mass)#Tower pound that 5400 grains is correct. --Anonymous, 19:53 UTC, November 8, 2009.

The £10 note in my wallet (I'm too poor to have £20 notes!) says "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds". There is no mention of gold. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often wondered what I would be paid if I turned up on Her Majesty's doorstep and demanded my 10 pounds. Not Sterling Silver, I assume? So why keep the wording. Is there any meaning to the wording these days?195.128.251.193 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once actually tried that at a bank (the teller was someone I knew, so I knew it wouldn't be taken the wrong way). I pulled out a £5 note and said "you promised, where's my five pounds?" In response, my friend the teller exchanged it for five nice shiny £1 coins. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pound coins are not made of gold, so you've been robbed! On a side note, the Daily Mail says that one in four pound coins is fake, making it 'the most counterfeited currency in Britain' (What other currencies are we using, then?). --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pound coins are worth a pound, though, by definition, so you haven't been robbed of anything. Also - robbery requires violence, you mean "stolen from". --Tango (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Queen or your high street bank have promised anything. The notes are signed by the governor of the Bank of England. If you go to the Bank of England and try and claim your £10 they will probably give you what they owe you - £10. They will do that in the most efficient manner they can, with a £10 note (a nice crisp new one in exchange for your old crumpled one) - if they refuse, rip your note in half, then they are obliged to replace it, although you may have to fill out a form first. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that wilful defacement of the currency was actually an offence in the UK. We are certainly not allowed to draw or write on notes, and I would have thought that ripping them up would come into that category. I know it's possible to get money replaced if the serial number is still visible after an accident, but I don't think that doing it in front of staff at the Bank Of England would constitute as an accident. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying currency is certainly illegal in Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was much younger, a shop (it could have been Argos or Index...or not) scribbled on any paper money they were given before storing it away. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Keating once signed an Australian 5 dollar note - technically defacing it - and he was Prime Minister of Australia at the time, and had previously been Treasurer! Mitch Ames (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an Irish bank I have knowledge of, bundles on notes are routinely marked with highlighter before filling the ATM, in order to make balancing the machine quicker. Stanstaple (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that in colloquial English, it's possible to say "wanna" as a shorthand for "want to". Can it also be used as a shorthand for "wants to"? JIP | Talk 16:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can in AAVE, but not in standard English. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)Never heard it myself but then I'm an old fart who's way out of touch with street speak - or so my nephew tells me. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never call a lady an old fart. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on AAVE states: Present-tense verbs are uninflected for number/person: there is no -s ending in the present-tense third-person singular. Example: She write poetry ("She writes poetry"). G**gling for "he wanna" / "she wanna" turns up thousands of hits in various pop lyrics and forums, so it seems normal in colloquial (US? / AAVE?) English. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also hear the opposite, usually in jest: "I wants to go home." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a normal inflection in Newfoundland English. There is only one verb form, and it's the one that ends in -s, sort of the opposite of AAVE. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in the term "wannabe", which can be used in any tense ("JackofOz is a wannabe expert"). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But "wannabe" is not tensed, it's an adjective or noun. In the sentence above, it isn't a shorthand for "JackofOz wants to be an expert", it's its own word. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "want to be" or "wants to be" slurred and converted into a noun or adjective, kind of like the synonym often used for mystery novels or detective novels, a "whodunit" ("who done it?", slangy English for "who did it?") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, it is derived from "want to be" but is now lexicalized and has a meaning of its own. Saying "That guy is a real wannabe" is not the same as saying "That guy wants to be...". The main point is, it's not a verb and thus is not an example of "wanna" used for "wants to". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I think you would say "he is a wannabe" and "they are wannabes". Yes? Just like "those books are 'whodunits'". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see how that's relevant to the OP's question, which is essentially "can you say 'He wanna'?" rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In colloquial English, you can say most anything you want, as in "Day-O! Daylight come and me wanna go home." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the form that Baseball Bugs cites is from a calypso song and uses a Caribbean patois, which, like, AAVE, does not conjugate verbs for person. The answer to the poster's question is that, apart from creole-influenced dialects of English, wanna cannot stand for wants to. This rule holds for nearly all varieties of English in North America apart from AAVE and for all varieties of English I know in Europe and the Antipodes. Marco polo (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(And, as a side note, "me wanna go home" doesn't illustrate anything about how the verb is conjugated in that dialect. It's a perfectly fine first-person singular; what's 'different' about it is that "me" is used instead of "I". So it's still not really comparable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You wanna go home?" -- "Yeh, I wanna go home." -- "Does he wanna go home?" -- That's the way around it in third person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Does he wanna go home" != "Does he wants to go home". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I think you want to drop the matter at this point. In "Does he wanna go home" it's the helping verb does that's inflected for the third-person singular, not the following infinitive; no verb would take the -s inflection in the construction "X does —". You're just pushing this beyond anything that's linguistically justified. 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the very first response directly answered the question, perhaps you could close this entire discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first couple of responses said all there is to say about the matter, but I am not willing to assume the responsibility of closing any discussion here. I was merely suggesting that you avoid confusing the OP, who is not a native speaker of English. Deor (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this is all based on a mispronunciation - JackofOz is a wallaby expert! ;) Grutness...wha? 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So is a wallaby a kangaroo wannabe? Or is it the other way around? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more like a wobbly expert! Or, as I proudly proclaim on my user page, a "pauper's polymath".  :) -- JoO in disguise as 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna, gonna, etc. are actually grammatically somewhat complicated. You could say "I wanna win the race" (if you are running in one), or you might ask "who do you want to win the race?" (if you are a spectator), but "who do you wanna win the race?" sounds wrong (example from here). "Wanna" would not replace "wants to". See also trace (linguistics). 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I paid attention to this, but if I remember correctly, the generative account for that is something to do with the PRO operator in the "to..." clause (or something equally fun/arcane). Arnold Zwicky has written several papers on "gonna". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closest you would hear (besides in AAVE and similar) is something like "wansta". The 's' really has to be there or else it sounds wrong, like you don't know how to conjugate verbs. Rckrone (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]