Language desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13[edit]

Kanji[edit]

Can Japanese be entirely written in kanji nowadays? How would one avoid using the kanas in order to write in an old fashioned style? Thanks. Hús ö nd 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can take a look at Man'yōgana. But of course you cannot expect people understand you if you choose to write that way. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Don't worry, I just wanted to know how to write in an ancient way. Not for actual communicative purposes. :-) Hús ö nd 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this style of writing is called Chinese. --67.177.170.96 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can use Chinese characters (the written form) to represent any language (the spoken form), if you really want to. Doing so may be clumsy, but that is possible. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose[edit]

Can the word "whose" be used in an 'object-possesive' way
Ex: At the end of the hall was a room whose door was open.
Books whose copyright has expired.
Is this correct? --Codell^«T» 01:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common to find such expressions, and it would be considered correct these days. Only a pedant would insist on "Books the copyright of which has expired" (or "Books the copyrights of which have expired"). -- JackofOz 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says that "Note that whose, while sometimes reserved for human antecedents, is commonly found also with nonhuman ones..."--K.C. Tang 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To support this claim that some pedants might avoid it, I cite the OED's notice: "usually replaced by of which, except where the latter would produce an intolerably clumsy form." But I find it more interesting that the OED gives a long run of citations of "whose" in reference to things, from Wyclif's 1382 translation of the Old Testament down to the present day, by way of Shakespeare ("I could a Tale vnfold, whose lightest word / Would harrow vp thy soule"), Milton ("Mountains on whose barren brest / The labouring clouds do often rest"), et al., so that in my view those are some excessively pedantic pedants who object to this familiar and natural usage! Wareh 14:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this answers my question. --Codell^Talk 01:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "books whose copyright have expired". Corvus cornix 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, Corvus. It is the copyright that has expired, not the books. More plausibly, though, the books do not share a copyright. In that case, it would be "the books whose copyrights have expired". Marco polo 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Marco, your second version is better. Corvus cornix 01:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be pragmatic. "Whose" almost invariably refers to humans (or at least sentient beings). Not a book, door, or a pile of dog poop. So, use it when refering to humans; use it otherwise at your own risk of appearing ignorant.

Poor Milton and Shakespeare. Condemned as ignorant. Skittle 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To solve your "open door" sentence:

Good - "At the end of the hall, a room had a door open."

Better - "Closed rooms filled the hallway, save for one at the end."

Best - "At hallway's end, an open door - room 666!"

--67.177.170.96 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they used "whose" in reference to objects, they were ignorant. --67.177.170.96 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I just don't understand you prescriptivists. What were they ignorant of? A rule which hadn't been codified in their time? Something handed down from an official authority that didn't exist? The edicts of God Almighty about the way the English language should be used? Marnanel 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetics and phonology of English and ...[edit]

What books will I need if I want to study these topics on my own? I am told that, in the case of English, some parts include

A

The organs of speech
The International Phonetic Alphabet (the chart)
English Phonemes
Vowels: Classification, front vowels, central vowels, back vowels, diphthongs. English phonemic system and its notation ( with diagrams)
Consonants: State of vocal cords, manner of articulation, place of articulation. Consonant clusters
Practices and applications

B

The pronunciation of General American
Accents: General British Vs General American
Kenyon & Knott (K.K.)
Pronunciation of ed-ending verbs
Stress
Sound-changes: assimilation, elision, elision in contracted forms
Linking
Strong form and weak form of the structure words in English
Styles of pronunciation
Intonation: falling tone, rising tone, fall-rise tone, tone unit boundary, prominent syllable

I don't know whether I shall 1) find a class course elsewhere, 2) take a related course in university after I enter a university (very soon) or 3) learn them in other ways. What books (or wiki articles, whatever) would you suggest?

I have briefly gone through the "A" parts above. I just don't quite understand the "B" parts.--61.92.239.192 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can first take a look at English phonology, regional accents of English speakers, stress (linguistics), intonation (linguistics) and sound change. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have articles on General American and Kenyon and Knott. —An gr 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proper use of the word riparius?![edit]

This is a rather interesting thing i came across. I was just playing a Command&Conquer game called "Tiberian Sun". This game, unlike Red Alert 2, didnt have tooltip text for objects in the game......

Until now. An upgrade made it available for use during game play. While i was playing, i noticed these odd trees that spit out "Tiberium", a special resource in the game. When i hovered over this tree, i noticed a strange name for the tree in the tooltip text.

"Tiberium Riparius" !

...So i looked up the name at dictionary.com and also here at wikipedia. "Riparious" is a similar word which means an object that lives by a river bank. the word "Riparius" in Latin literally means river bank. However.... this Tiberium Riparius is located by water in some cases, but not always.

"Riparius" also can refer to a soldier in a byzantine frontier unit.... which refers to roman forces, and thier move to byzantine, which is the old name for constantinople/istanbul according to my friend. This reference doesnt make sense either unless theres some cultural conection im missing.

The purpose of this odd tree is to restore resources to the playing field, but i dont understand the reson for the assigning of its name. is there one???

If not, i surmise that maybe the creators of the game didnt have the tooltip text, so they never thought that players would see the name of the object, and named it something random that has nothing to do with nothing. If thats the case... SUPRISE! we can read it now!

(edit): maybe the latin version of this word is supposed to mean "USUALLY grows by rivers" ?

172.162.215.155 08:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Tiberian sun, but riparius is used in several examples of the binomial nomenclature of species: Ancylometes riparius, Sylvilagus bachmani riparius, Myotis riparius, Elaphrus riparius, Gyraulus riparius, etc. Presumably, some of these were named after the ecotope where they were first discovered, which need not always coincide with their main habitat.83.79.154.143 11:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(added) The examples given above are all animal species, but I found a plant as well: Elymus riparius. I also found Miscellaneous_factions_of_Command_&_Conquer#Tiberian_lifeforms, but it might contain nothing you don't know already. 83.79.154.143 11:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exobotanist responsible for this naming is not following the recommendation that the name conform to the Latin grammar requirement of gender agreement. Tiberium is clearly neuter, but riparius is masculine. It should have been Tiberium riparium (as in Leptodictyum riparium). With a female genus name you get riparia (as in Justicia riparia). The usual meaning, also in Latin, is: found on, or frequenting, river banks. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic translation[edit]

What does the following mean: العربية: دخولك هنا غير مسجل. إن عنوان الأيبي الخاص بك سيتم إدراجه ضمن تاريخ الصفحة مما قد يضر

It's from the image description of Commons:Image:4 stars.svg - A cursory online translation gives a translation (although rather patchy) which doesn't seem to be related to the image, instead talking about recorders and "completing his inclusion"; is this multilingual vandalism (the image does seem to be oddly prone to vandalism), or just a perfectly normal image description corrupted by a bad translation? Laïka 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate gave me "Arab : Sign here unregistered. The title of your Alaibi will be incorporated into the history page, which may be detrimental". I bet it's the standard "You're not logged on; your IP address will be recorded in the page history" message, and have therefore removed it. —An gr 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm right. I just logged out of Commons and then hit Edit, and the warning came up in several languages, including this in Arabic: العربية: دخولك هنا غير مسجل. إن عنوان الأيبي الخاص بك سيتم إدراجه ضمن تاريخ الصفحة مما قد يضر بخصوصيتك Only the last word was missing in the version on the image description page. —An gr 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arabic: your entry here is not registered (permitted?). Your IP address will be incorporated into the history page..." A mixture of what I and the machine came up with. Both very imperfect... Drmaik 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Well, I'm not using that translator again: I got "The Arab: Entering your here other than recorder. Indeed address [aal'ayby] special bey will be complete his inclusion within date of the page of which already [yD]"! Smurrayinchester 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add to what was said, but I can't help pointing out that this translation had me chuckling for a while :-) — Zerida 22:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyedit[edit]

HI. What's the name for when an article contains a significant amount of text copied word from word from a manual or press release? - I thought such things were called copy edits but looking at that article has revealed to me I was misinformed. Thanks.87.102.89.96 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that the normal word for it was Plagiarism. You may be thinking of copy vio, which is short for "Copyright Violation". Laïka 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is pretending that you wrote it. Copyright violation is copying it when you don't have permission to. They are two different concepts, although of course a single action may be both. If you copy something that is in the public domain (no copyright), such as a US government document or a sufficiently old book, that might be plagiarism but it is not copyright violation. If you say "Isaac Asimov wrote this essay" and copy the entire content of the essay, that is copyright violation but it is not plagiarism.

Wikipedia content is supposed to be free of copyright violation, but nothing requires the person who posts it to be the author, so the concept of plagiarism generally does not apply here. People are supposed to identify their sources, but failing to do so does not constitute plagiarism. --Anonymous, June 14, 00:37 (UTC).

It was 'copy vio' - an edit that copys - hence my confusion.83.100.132.249 06:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]