Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 9

Chinese search help needed

Could someone please look for Chinese-language sources on the Four Happiness Boys? If it's what it's cracked up to be, it should have a lot more sources in Chinese than in English, and further sources are definitely needed. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's called 四喜娃娃 in Chinese, and "four happiness boys" is a terrible translation. 娃娃 means "small child", but can either be male or female, and is in fact usually female. 喜 does loosely mean "happiness", but more accurately means joy or good fortune in this context. Even the "four" is translated ambiguously--there are in fact two children, and the 四 unambiguously refers to the number of joys, not the number of children.

Anyhow, the Chinese Wikipedia has an article on this: [1]. So does Baidu: [2]. I also managed to find an English source here. If you search the Chinese name using Google images, you'll find a lot of examples. Here is one of them. Notice how it depicts two girls, not four boys. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Learning another improves one’s own usage?

I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that learning another language improves the learner’s usage or comprehension of her or his own language. Is this true? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It could work out that way, if it makes the learner more conscious of matters of grammar and usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It can also help when looking for translations of words from the new language you encounter new words in your native language. Richard Avery (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That would be part of "comprehension", if you include "expanded vocabulary" under that topic. It's interesting to study a Romance language and see how many words you "know already but didn't know it." An example is the Spanish word for thoughtful, pensativo. The lesser-used English synonym for thoughtful is "pensive". Not a term the average Joe uses very often, but it might help comprehension. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You have to be careful in using apparent cognates, of course. I'm reminded of Spanish-speakers I've known who say "traduce" instead of "translate" because the Spanish verb is traducir. However, the obscure English cognate "traduce" doesn't really mean "translate", it's more like "defame". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Spanish traducir and English traduce are false friends.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology Online says "traduce" comes from the Latin traducere.[3] If you look traducir on the Real Academia site, it says traducir likewise comes from the Latin traducere.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

See Impact of Second Language Learning on First Language and Why learn a foreign language? Benefits of bilingualism by Anne Merritt. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it's definitely the case. Especially in the case of English as a mother tongue if you study a somewhat closely related Indo-European language, and not just in vocabulary. Although I could use the English verb tenses, the terms used to describe them, like "perfect" never made any sense to me until I studied French formally in high school. That first year of French was full of moments where things in grammar suddenly "clicked" for me, and I became a much better writer in English, with a better command over my choices. It's like going from knowing how to drive sitting in the seat to understanding how the gears and the steering mechanism and tires and so forth actually work, and applying that knowledge to what you know about the gear shift stick and the steering wheel.

You can't really form proper cnceptual abstractions unless you have at least two examples of the item you are trying to understand. Rules of grammar are pretty much meaningless words you memorize so long as you only know one language. Learning two or more languages gives you examples you can compare, analogize, and analyze abstractly. You'll also find studying logic and learning a computer language will also help, although a little less directly than will learning a natural language. In addition to the above links, I'd look at implicit learning (versus explicit learning, at second-language acquisition and at concept formation. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Medeis that it strengthens your command of English grammar to learn a kindred Indo-European language such as Latin, French, or German. I would argue that Latin and German are especially powerful. Latin helps you understand the roots of many English words and also the synthetic structures and categories that form the historic basis of English, even though English is a more isolating language. German is even more targeted at those synthetic root structures and categories, since it shares a more recent common ancestor with English. It also has many cognates with English words that offer insights into the original meanings of English words. However, there is also great value in learning a language from an unrelated family with radically different grammar, such as Mandarin Chinese. Studying Chinese, in addition to the intrinsic pleasure and utility of any foreign language, has given me a broader linguistic perspective on English and all of the European languages and how their strategies for making meaning contrast with other kinds of strategies. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you could make the argument that the further away from English another language is, the more abstract the level of learning about language. Learning a romance or germanic language will help immensely with vocabulary and to an extent with grammar (especially a West Germanic or one of the Western Romance languages). Greek and Latin will give you the roots of the vocabulary, and a mastery of grammar. Russian, Hindi, Japanese, Turkish, Arabic and Hungarian will give you a grounding in comparative grammar and an implicit understanding of comparative linguistics. Learning a truly distant language, like Chinese, will give you a grounding in the structure of thought itself. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Another article that might interest you is multi-competence. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal observation: Yes, as others have noted, it helps quite a bit with understand the structure of your own language, and also with understanding the origins of your language's word-stock. However, there is a small however: It is a common experience, after full immersion in another language (at least, a reasonably closely related one), to invent words in your own language that never existed, and not to be quite sure whether they're real words or not. It's a minor drawback, easily corrected, and I certainly wouldn't give it much weight — overall, your competence in your native language is likely to improve. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally not sure that's a drawback. See linguistic interference. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

See "Polyglotism" and "Cross-training" and "Multi-instrumentalist".

—Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for killjoying, but let me wedge myself into the discussion and break the unanimity. :) I think (and I encounter this opinion before), that to do something better you'd better to do it not other things. If you want to know your own language better, then learn it. Good grammar and reference books and active practice are quite good things. There was mentioned Latin, and I recalled this article: "Latin teaches you English." It may do so, but if you want to study English, study English, and you will come out ahead. For sheer vocabulary Latin confers a lot, on the other hand wide reading in English and use of the dictionary teaches you English fast enough. I'm quite agree.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I spoke perfect English before I ever formally studied another language, Ljuboslov. I actually had someone from the next town over ask me if I was English when I was in the 8th grade, presumably because of my speech. But none of my studying it for 8+ years had benefitted me. I remember being taught stress, and told to talk into my hand and feel the puffs. I remember being taught syllabification. I remember being taught the tenses. None of this made sense. "Computer" has only one stress, but three puffs. Once I was formally instructed on French it became possible to compare English and French, and understand the difference. Before that there was nothing to compare English to. I've also formally studied Russian, which has mad clear to me various aspects of verbal aspect and palatalization. Before that such terms were vague approximations and meaningless memorizations. Telling someone who hasn't learned another language to study' English is no different from telling them to memorize a list of labels they don't understand. μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

While studying three (if not to count basic Latin) foreign languages my written Russian hadn't changed and was as bad as usual (though better than average). I was formally neither Slavist nor Russist but once I became very interested in Slavistics and Russistics and decided to study them by myself thoroughly and only then with a little written practice my Russian became much much better. And foreign languages didn't help at all. At least if they helped but I did not notice it, now I cannot formulate what their help was. Maybe I became more grammatically conscious but while Russian grammar is quite different, my consciousness is from read by me Russian grammar books not English, German or French ones. But I agree everyone has his own experiment.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Film Footage

I'd like some help explaining the usage of "footage". I know film is measured in feet. You can have one foot of film or two feet of film. Additionally, one may have one foot of footage or two feet of footage. But you can't have two feet of "footages". And you can't have two separate individual (foots?) feet of footages. So is "footage" always used as a plural? Or do the singular and plural have the same word? What other types of words are like this and do they have a name? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

See mass noun. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You can say the films have different footages if you have to. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't have two feet of anything plural. Film is also a mass noun (two feet of film) but can be countable (two films). This seems to make footage a superfluous word, see jargon, and for film footage, see pleonasm.  Card Zero  (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "footage" is typically used for a segment of a film, such as a particular scene, and was first used that way in 1916.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's from the OED cite: "‘B. M. Bower’ Phantom Herd ii. 22 He visualized a stampede and the probable amount of footage it would require." Dbfirs 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because "amount of film" might be misunderstood as a measurement taken sideways? "For a large stampede, we'd need to switch to 65mm!"  Card Zero  (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 10

Are bands plural or nonlpural

What is the generally accepted form of verbs for groups on Wikipedia? For example do people use "Google are" or "Google is", "Nirvana were" or "Nirvana was" etc etc. teratogen (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. Basically, if the group is British say are/were e.g. "The Beatles were" but if American say was/is, e.g. "Nirvana was". --Viennese Waltz 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you! teratogen (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Americans also would say "The Beatles were...", because Beatles is plural. The difference shows up only when the band name is not obviously plural. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to make it a bit clearer, American English agrees with the word not with what it represents. Thus, when discussing a band name with a singular gramatical form, American English will take the plural form if the word is itself plural, but singular form if the word itself is singular. Thus, "The Eagles are a band..." but "Grand Funk Railroad is a band..." In British English, the verb agrees with what is being represented, regardless of whether the word itself is plural or singular. Thus, since a musical group is multiple people, in British English the convention is to always use the plural form regardless of what the name itself is. Thus, "The Smiths are a band..." is correct, but so is "New Order are a band..." The second sounds odd to American ears because of the combination of a singular noun (order) with a plural verb (are); but in British English, since New Order is multiple people, it takes the plural verb (are). --Jayron32 19:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. in British English the convention is to use singular or plural with singular-named collectives depending on whether the sense is the collective as a unit or as a multiple. So "New Order was formed in 19XX" is more natural than "were formed", but "New order play xxx" (not 'plays'). --ColinFine (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So, Bahamas are a Canadian musician?  Card Zero  (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because Bahamas is a person, not a collective. Different grammatical rules. --Jayron32 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Grand Funk Railroad is five people" - correct?  Card Zero  (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to adopt North American usage for North American bands and British usage for British bands. (Who knows what they do in the Antipodes.) If you speak North American English, use North American grammar for all bands, including British ones. If you speak British English or a version of English with a similar grammar rule, apply that rule to all bands, British or American. If English is not your first language and you are asking this question, then it is probably time for you to choose one English variant or another and use it consistently. Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the rule if you are yourself American or British and are writing or speaking to a like-cultured audience. I say "New Order is one of my favorite bands from the 80's" all the time, because I am American and that's how my version of English works. I would never say "New Order are..." in any context. If someone is British, I would expect them to use the latter all the time. That's fine. The difference is that Wikipedia is written for an international audience who speak various forms of English, and as a result, conventions need to be established which are a) consistent and b) don't favor any one form of English. Thus the policy of WP:ENGVAR is the compromise we have reached; when speaking of subjects which have a connection to one particular culture, use the standard variety of English used by that culture. --Jayron32 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I hear people on the news and radio using "are" for singular groups ALL the time! i.e. "Google are", "Nirvana are" etc. It bugs the heck out of me. teratogen (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't expect us Brits to be consistent with this. I could say either and don't particularly notice what others say. I would notice if proofreading or editing, and would usually change to the singular. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. Jayron and Viennese Waltz are correct about how to use those verbs on Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted this is a relevantly recent innovation in Britain. You don't find it in Shakespeare, Dickens, or old movies, and not in Shaw or Wilde as far as I am aware--I may be wrong there, but I haven't noticed it. Pluralization is a common way to mark politeness and prestige, so its spread may simply be a form of euphemism. See T/V distinction and royal we. It would be interesting to see when this trend began. Perhaps with the BBC? μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, I'm finding the American usage being generalised to "names take a singular verb even if they're plural". I occasionally find myself having to revert edits to articles on tribes of Iron Age Britain that change "The Atrebates were a tribe..." to "the Atrebates was a tribe..." --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that plural verb with grammatically singular noun does not occur in Dickens can be shown to be incorrect with a minute or two of Googling. Rock bands having been in short supply in the 19th Century, I looked for concordance for "the committee were" and "the committee have" as "committee" is a word with some history of being used with a plural verb, particularly where the emphasis is on the individuals within the group. From Martin Chuzzlewit: "The Committee were embellished also [...]" [6]; from an article in Household Words: "The best and most spirited teacher was a young man [...] whom the Committee were about to send out to Australia [7]; from a speech made by Dickens in 1856: "twice the committee have considered that it was not unreasonable" [8]. Although Dickens had no cause to write about rock bands, he was happy to use a plural verb when talking about another musical band: "The band were seated opposite us. Five men, with wind instruments, part of the band of the National Guard, to which the farmer's sons belong" [9]. Jayron32's explanation of the rationale behind this usage is sound and I see no reason to complicate the issue with references to politeness and euphemism. Valiantis (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good. "The committee were" as a search term would not have occurred to me. Is that a lone usage, or are there other examples, such as "the parliament were"? I am not sure what you mean by "Jayron's reasoning", but if it is that collective nouns take plural verbs because they have members, that is no explanation at all, just a rationalization. It was not just discovered in the 19th century and only in Britain that committees actually have plural membership. The singular verb with a noun whose form is singular has been around since PIE days; that's not the result of ignorance that some singular nouns are names for bodies with more than one person. Some other reason for the adoption and spread of the formation is necessary. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

While both the British or American usage are grammatically correct we should remember that the British use, if applied strictly, conveys more information, particularly as band names are traditionally a sort of non representative verbal shortcut, like the name of a pub. Take the currently popular Passenger (singer), for example, which is the name that a singer called Mike Rosenberg puts on his recordings. He used to be in Passenger (band), but kept the name after the band broke up in 2009, so the pre-2009 'Passenger are...' and post 2009 'Passenger is...' tells us something about the artist. Similarly I first saw Villagers (band) on Later when the 'band' consisted of just Conor O'Brien and his guitar. The British have been used to doing this for years in regard to pub names: "The Hat and Feathers is a pub". I'd be interested to know whether Americans ever say something like "Cheers are a bar"?Blakk and ekka 16:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Cheers!" is a conventionalized toast (like "Bottoms up!" or whatever) and is not an ordinary plural noun (it's an interjection, not a real noun at all in its main usage). The actual noun "cheer" is abstract and not easily pluralizable, in the meaning corresponding to the drinking toast... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In what variety of English is "Google are" used? I could see "Bing and Google are search engines" but not "Google are a search engine". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't get "Google are a serach engine", but you might get "Google are a company best known for their search engine". --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes we see writers with feet in both camps. Apple are playing catch-up, says Microsoft: Microsoft has brushed off Apple's move to give away its software, claiming the iWork productivity suite from its rival was "lightweight" …. And here, the writer starts out treating Google as singular (is, it, its), but before the end of the opening paragraph it's become plural (are, they). Then the final sentence of the 2nd para switches briefly back to singular before reverting to plural (... has been able to limit their success ...). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting because both "Google are a company best known for their search engine" and "Google is a company best known for their search engine" sound fine to me and I really don't see any problem with Jacks first example. This suggests that sooner or later someone is going to be annoyed with me for using the wrong phrasing in an article. It's probably due to the strange variety of English that I've listened to over the past 40 years. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If I heard someone say "Google are a company that.." or "Grand Funk are a band that.." I might reply "It ARE?" because the sentence sounds like it has a singular subject. Edison (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

CBW, I don't think anyone would support mixing and matching different varieties in the same context. My first example is equivalent to "Microsoft is a company, but Apple are a company". Is that weird, or are that weird? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with French phrase

• There is a French language book review used in De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes.

It states:

• "FU Daiwie prend comme le titre de son texte Imposition of Taxonomy. Effectivement les traducteurs européens notamment Joseph Needham obéissent à leur conception taxonomique dans le choix des fragment sà rendre et la manière de la faire. Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original. L’auteur, pris Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude, effectue une analyse critique à partir de leurs interprétations de la découverte de la déclinaison magnétique en Chine."

Google Translate:

• "FU Daiwie takes as the title of his text Imposition of Taxonomy. Indeed the European translators such as Joseph Needham obey their taxonomic design in the choice of fragments to make and how to do it. This inevitably leads to a deformation of the original face. The author, Dream Pool Essays taken as a case study, carried out a review based on their interpretations of the discovery of the magnetic declination in China analysis."

So is the author is saying that by translating something selectively, the meaning of the text is degraded, and that one has to translate the whole text in order for it to be true to the original? And that Mengxi Bitan is used as the author's case study?

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

First, there's a small error in the French text. It should be des fragments à rendre.

I would translate the text as: FU Daiwie takes as the title of his text "Imposition of Taxonomy". Effectively, the European translators, such as Joseph Needham, follow their taxonomic conception in their choice of fragments to render and their manner of doing it. That which results inevitably leads to a deformation in regard to the original. Mengxi Bitan taken as a case study, the author carries out a critical analysis based on their interpretations of the discovery of magnetic declination in China. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not translate effectivement as "effectively"; that's a slight false friend, I think. GT's "indeed" is probably closer. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem using indeed, but one of the meanings of effectively is "in effect" which means the same thing as "in fact" or "in deed". The emphasis is different, and I'll bow to your judgment on the connotation of the term. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm making a bit of an assumption as well, which is that it's the same as Italian. Effettivamente or in effetti means "in fact", but not so much "in effect". In English, I hear "in effect" as meaning something like "restricting ourselves to the practical consequences and ignoring fine distinctions", which connotation is not really there in the Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! The "des fragments" thing turned out to be a typo on my end (I reviewed the text to make sure) - Medeis, your translation is used here: De_l'un_au_multiple:_Traductions_du_chinois_vers_les_langues_européenes#The_versatilities_of_translations WhisperToMe (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Do see Trovatore's suggestion above. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I quoted only a portion of the quote, which does not include "effectivement/indeed" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence would be better: "This inevitably leads to deformation compared to the original." And "effectivement" is indeed indeed. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original is not a complete sentence. Is there a verb missing? I assumed there was. IMJ's translation is removing something while mine adds something. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked the source text and it does say: "Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original." WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the punctuation right as well? Ce qui means that which, so we literally get an incomplete phrase: "That which follows inevitably a deformation in regard to the original." I assumed there was an omitted "is" after follows. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is a natural construction in somewhat informal French. Technically, it's a sentence fragment. I think it should not be translated "That which ..." but "Which ...", as in "Which inevitably entails a deformation relative to the original." In informal English that kind of dependent clause often occurs even though it violates prescriptive grammar. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but "which" is no different from "that which", in that it introduces a dependent clause, and a verb is still missing, or perhaps the punctuation is wrong. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original is a complete sentence. About "ce qui", you can refer to this page — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that page only shows ce qui being used to introduce dependent clauses, and that is the prescriptively "correct" usage. However, as I've been trying to say, it is common in French to begin a sentence with this pronoun, even though it is not really "correct". Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Marco's right. It's technically a sentence fragment, but one that is tolerated even in quite formal French. A literal translation wouldn't sound good in English, so you can translate it the way I said unless Aldo has a better solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to Le Bon Usage (mine is 12th ed., 1988) §674: "Ce devant une proposition relative commençant par qui, que, quoi prépositionel, dont. [...] b) Ce comme représentant une phrase [my emphasis] ou une partie de phrase et constituant avec une relative un élément incident : [...] Le lien avec l'antécédent se relâche facilement, et les auteurs mettent alors une ponctuation forte devant le démonstratif. Ponctuation forte is meant to be a full stop, a semi colon... The translation by Itsmejudith is fine for me, but I am not an English native speaker.— AldoSyrt (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The first page you linked to above, AldoSyrt, gives only examples of relative usage, and each sentence with ce qui has two finite verbs. You've cited another source, which also says the usage is relative, but you give no examples. It is quite easy to interpret Ce qui entraîne est inévitablement une déformation face à l’original as a full gramatical sentence, but until I see an example parallel to ee qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original without a main verb I am going to have to disagree. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagreeing with a native speaker closely referring to Le Bon Usage. You're out of your depth, Medeis. Ce qu'il fallait démontrer. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Example given by Le Bon Usage, §674. "Il pouvait apercevoir l'Anglaise sans bouger, rien qu'en déplaçant les pupilles sous ses paupières baissées. Ce qu'il fit." Roger Martin du Gard (Nobel prize of literature) in The Thibaults. An other example by Marcel Proust in Á l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs: "Pour lui en toute circonstance il faisait ce qui lui paraissait le plus agréable, le plus commode, mais aussitôt c'était imité par les snobs. Ce qui n'empêche pas qu'il était délicieux avec elle, qu'elle l'adorait, et qu'il l'a pleurée pendant des années." The notion of "full grammatical sentence" is not clear, and there are, in French at least, numerous definitions of sentence. To quote again Le bon Usage: "Mais le plus souvent la communication se fait par une suite de phrases, qui sont en relation les unes avec les autres." (Note, to draw a bit a parallel, that this sentence begin with mais, that is considered as a mistake by des esprits logiciens as they are called by Grevisse -- it is not a compliment.) To go back to the notion of "full grammatical sentence", let analyze it. "Ce qui" subject , "entraîne" verb, ["...] une déformation [...]" direct object: S + V + DO. The syntax is correct. Yes I know, grammar is not only syntax... — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples! (You'll note Judith, I didn't say Aldo was wrong, period. Just that I wanted examples.) μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Et te voilà servie, ma vieille. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The sentence L’auteur, pris Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude, effectue une analyse critique ... sounds weird. Is there a typo? I should say something like L’auteur pris Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude et effectua une analyse critique ... — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking it should be "l'auteur, pris par..." Adam Bishop (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is said L’auteur, pris par Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude..., it means that "the author" is taken as a case study by Mengxi Bitan. So, the English translation should be changed, if it is established... — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, either the par is missing and the meaning differs from my translation, or the pris is in an odd order. I took auter to refere to FU Daiwie, who wrote the text. Hence my interpretation. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there were supposed to be two verbs in the passé simple, "pris" would have to be "prit". I would say that changing both "pris" and "effectue" is the lectio difficilior, so it's more likely that "par" is missing after "pris" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The French native speaker made a mistake! You are right: "l'auteur prit", with a "t". I think you gave the clue (Occam razor). Nonetheless, there are several problems with the text. "prend comme le titre de son texte"; "pris comme un cas d'étude"; "et la manière de la faire", I cannot see what la refers to; "leurs interprétations", I do not understand the usage of "leurs" here. Are Mengxi Bitan different persons? —AldoSyrt (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I assumed leurs refered to les traducteurs européens. I am not sure pris should be prit. It then clashes in tense with effectue. I assumed it was a strangely placed past participle, "taken", meant to be an absolute: "Mengxi Bitan taken as a case study". μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not read all the comments, so this might have been mentioned already. There should be a double n in européennes to agree with langues in the feminine plural. Please see wikt:européennes.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with Chinese: Daiwie Fu's resume

I want to see if 傅大為 is the Chinese characters for "Daiwie Fu" [sic] who wrote "On Mengxi bitan's World of Marginalities and 'South-pointing Needles': Fragment Translation vs. Contextual Tradition" for De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes. There is a resume of a Daiwie Fu here sts.ym.edu.tw/index.php?act=member&pid=0&cid=0&id=7 http://archive.is/WLyYw

The work isn't listed there (the essay is from 1999). How do I get past versions of Daiwie Fu's resume to try to source that the Daiwie Fu who wrote the article has the Chinese name 傅大為? (and therefore has the Wikipedia article zh:傅大為). I'm trying to find pages that mention him at http://web.archive.org/web/20000301125640/http://www.ym.edu.tw/ym2.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/20050306052457/http://www.ym.edu.tw/ but I have had trouble finding them. Wouldn't he have a profile and be working at the same university? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The essay itself http://books.openedition.org/editionsmsh/1494 states that he was "Daiwie Fu National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan." so I wonder if past versions of that website will answer my question. I wonder if I can find him in here http://web.archive.org/web/20000620171538/http://www.nthu.edu.tw/NTHU/departs.html WhisperToMe (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

His English resume http://sts-eng.ym.edu.tw/T-DWFU.html - http://archive.is/rIULS seems to indicate it's him ("18. 1999, “On Mengxi Bitan’s [夢溪筆談] World of Marginalities and ‘South-Pointing Needles’: Fragment Translation vs. Contextual Translation” De l’Un au Multiple. De la traduction du Chinois dans les langues Europeennes, edited by Viviane Alleton and Michael Lackner, pp.175-201, Editions de la Maison de Sciences de l’Homme. 此文減縮1/3的一版本，刊於 Current Perspectives in the History of Science in East Asia, ed., by Yung Sik Kim and Francesca Bray, Seoul National University Press, 1999, pp.52-66." and "National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, TAIWAN 2007-"), but I would like to check earlier resumes on the National Tsing Hua website (the resume says his title was "Professor, History, Division of History of Science, and Division of STS. National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan, 1993-2009.") WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On http://web.archive.org/web/20010408213007/http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw/~hist/teacher.html (Archive) is http://web.archive.org/web/20010424173647/http://rpgs1.isa.nthu.edu.tw/faculty/dwfu/ (Archive) which leads to the proof it's him. http://web.archive.org/web/20010728102324/http://rpgs1.isa.nthu.edu.tw/faculty/dwfu/pub-a.html - http://archive.is/CJdyq

I guess I answered my own question  Done WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 11

Help with Chinese: Finding Western Studies Department

On http://web.archive.org/web/20040811095009/http://www.sfs.nju.edu.cn/ (Archive of Nanjing University website) I want to find if Yu Xiuying (professor) once had a webpage there.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Found the webpages. Never mind..  Done WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

bis to insert numbered content in an existing numbered list: how to style?

Recently I've had to insert content when editing someone's numbered list. I vaguely recall using the word bis added to the number (to indicate that the final version will require renumbering due to the additions), but how is it styled? Preceded by a space? And to add more than one item between two sequential entries? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You would have a list like 1, 1 bis, 2, 3, 3 bis, 3 ter, 4... which would, in the final version become 1...7. I've rarely seen anything used beyond ter in such an instance, but apparently, the full list is as follows: bis, ter, quater, quinquies, sexies, septies, octies, novies, decies... [10]. This is actually more of a French usage; in English, I've seen it more often as 1, 1a, 2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4... --Xuxl (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed , I doubt that most English speakers would even recognise bis (let alone ter etc) unless they've worked with French sources or certain international standards. --ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

These are, of course, Latin words, not French words. They are called "numeral adverbs", and the full list is here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

But they are often used in French house numbers, for example (although as Xuxl says, hardly ever past "ter"). I don't think most French people realize they are Latin! The only time these words are regularly used in English is in prescriptions, and then they are usually abbreviated (bid = bis in die) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The French also tend to call out the Latin word "bis" where English audiences would use the French word "encore". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP adds: The source text "list" is actually the code-heavy typed transcription of a documentary film's existing English-language subtitles I'm reviewing prior to their translation. My communications with the polyglot subtitling team are exclusively in writing, black on white, and this is my first time working with their arcane format. So I wanted something, hopefully unambiguous, that would catch their collective eye. The suggested addition of lower-case letters I avoided as that's associated with outlining (e.g. the function in MS Word). I'm quite content if my maneuver sends these offsite colleagues running to the dictionary; that's the "same page" I'd like us to be on. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 13

secondaire

Hello, this pronunciation is [sœɡõdɛːʁ] or [sœɡõdaɛ̯ʁ] ? Fort123 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

paradox of "calcined ashes"

I've read about the term Alkali and I found this passage: "The word "alkali" is derived from Arabic al qalīy (or alkali), meaning the calcined ashes (see calcination), referring to the original source of alkaline substances.". I've noticed to the definition of "calcined ashes" and it seems for me like paradox because the meaning of ashes is something that was burnt, and if we say "calcined ashes" it seems like something unnecessary. Could it be that this words have been written by mistake or is there any explanation for that? Thank you. 213.57.113.25 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Calcination is not the same as combustion - and this early usage must also consider the alchemical processes of calcination too. Rmhermen (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Calcination originally meant a reaction with lime (calcium). It has since taken on a broader meaning of thermal decomposition so that calcium is no longer necessarily involved. So originally ashes, after heating with calcium hydroxide, produced alkali. Thincat (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Which" and "that"

I'm English so I think I use "which" and "that" interchangeably as relative pronouns. However, the usage notes at wikt:which and wikt:that give a US perspective. If I am writing carefully on WP, should I make an effort to use "which" non-restrictively and "that" restrictively to avoid confusing or irritating people? Is there an easy way to remember, how should I say it, which is which? A mnemonic or a sentence where it is obvious? Thincat (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To answer the first point, WP:ENGVAR is the relevant policy. I can't answer the second, because I'm English and don't remember how American peeves go. --ColinFine (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The book, which is on the table, is used" makes no claim about other books: it happens to be on the table. "The book that is on the table is used" implies there are other books elsewhere that are not used. That one is used, others aren't. The distinction should always be made. Engvar applies when there are two different forms, not when one variety just doesn't recognize a distinction. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• In reality though, both British and US English do recognize the distinction in much the same way: that can only be used in a restrictive clause, while which can be used either restrictively or non-restrictively. There is sometimes a notion that which should be used only non-restrictively, but that is not, as is often claimed, a property of American English as such (let alone of all English), but a property of the prescriptive prejudices of certain American grammar teachers and copyeditors, which has never been followed in actual practice by good writers of English. See [11] for some background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Though, as an American who has worked as a copyeditor, I unthinkingly observe the restrictive/nonrestrictive usage of that and which in my own writing, I'm familiar enough with literature from across the pond that the restrictive use of which doesn't bother me at all. It certainly has extensive historical precedent, and there are plenty of examples of it in Wikipedia, which I tend to barely notice. It's worth noting that the opposite usage—the use of that nonrestrictively—isn't a problem, since no one uses it so. So the basic rule that we Americans follow is "If you're setting the relative clause off with commas, use which; otherwise use that". I think you probably already follow the first part of that rule, so the only question is whether you need to follow the second part. I think ColinFine is correct in saying that you don't need to do so when writing on British topics in Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think even in speaking it is unusual for Americans to use which in restrictive clauses. It sounds awkward and slightly pretentious to American ears. Americans (apart from most professional editors) sometimes use which in restrictive clauses in writing perhaps because they are aiming for what they perceive as a higher register than their spoken language. Marco polo (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In the same way that some people usually write - but almost never speak - words like 'whilst', 'amongst' etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

December 14

Nationality-born vs. country-born

We often see descriptors like 'French-born', 'American-born', 'German-born' etc. At face value these seem to say the person was born French etc, which is usually taken to mean "a French citizen". That works for lots of examples: Henry Kissinger was indeed a German citizen before becoming an American; Yehudi Menuhin was indeed an American citizen before adopting British citizenship; etc.

However, there's a class of examples where all we can say is that the person was born in France etc, but not that they were ever citizens of that country. I think of the children of diplomats, who are generally citizens of their parents' home country only. I understand John McEnroe was never a German citizen despite being born there, as his father was serving in the US military. And so on.

So, why would we say McEnroe is "German-born"? I don't recall ever seeing "Germany-born" etc but, despite the clunkiness of such an expression, it would be more accurate in such cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"Born in Germany" is sufficient. There doesn't need to be a hyphenated phrase here. Including the spaces, my version is three characters longer and much more natural. German-born means, roughly "A German person at birth", which isn't true in McEnroe's case, he was never a German person. He was born within the boundaries of Germany. At no time did he ever have German nationality or citizenship or anything else. The example you gave is sloppy journalism plain-and-simple. If we must call him anything, "An American born in Germany" is sufficient, natural, accurate, and concise. Who could ask for anything better. --Jayron32 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron. A German-born Irishman is an Irish citizen born of German parents. An Irishman born in Germany is an...Irishman born in Germany. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

??? A German-born Irishman is an Irish citizen born of German parents. ??? That could mean an Irish citizen born in Uganda to parents who were German citizens. No way would he be described as 'German-born' anything; he'd much more likely be called a 'Ugandan-born Irishman (whose parents were Germans)'. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

At best, using "[X-an]-born" to describe anything other than a person born as a citizen of X within the boundaries of X is ambiguous. To avoid ambiguity, the construction should really only be used when the birth took place in X and the baby was originally a citizen of X. Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Dual citizenship and sub-national entities also raise their ugly heads here. Nicole Kidman could reasonably be described as "Hawaiian-born", but she was always an Australian citizen and always an American citizen, but never a Hawaiian citizen (no such thing since statehood). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

etymology of joystick?

This site says the name is attributed to a Mr. Joyce but that the real source is probably related to joy ride and not to the later allusion to a penis. Are there any good sources for an actual derivation? Thanks. (PS, this "arises" because I am trying to sell my dad's Atari 2600 on eBay.] μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The page you've linked to relies mainly on Michael Quinion's discussion of the term; if you would like to see his remarks in full, they can be found here. The "actual derivation" of such terms is usually quite difficult to pin down, since the all we have to go on is written sources that (1) may significantly postdate the terms' original use in speech and (2) may provide little or no indication of the circumstances of their coinage. I trust Mr. Quinion enough to assume that his analysis takes into account both the available evidence and the results of previous investigations, so you're unlikely to find a "good source" beyond what he offers. Deor (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- there are many suggestions and no really good sources. If you want another suggestion (with as little evidence to support it as has the putative Mr Joyce), then perhaps the fact that the stick was mounted in the floor joist of the plane might have given rise to the term. The expression "joy-ride" was popular at the time, so simple "joy" + "stick" seems more likely than "joist". The first written usage of the term seems to have been in Robert Loraine's diary of 1909, but it was presumably a colloquial term somewhat earlier. Dbfirs 09:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ufology excerpt in Romanian

Could someone translate the following Romanian into English for me? 50.143.149.164 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Locuitori dintr-o dimensiune subtila ai planetei Xer din constelatia Orion. Se aseamana foarte mult cu copacii din padurile de pe Pamant. Sunt de culoare galben-aurii, si au inaltime de 3-4 m. Sunt fiinte vii, rationale, iar durata lor de viata este e aproximativ 200 de ani terestrii.

Se inmultesc foarte ciudat. Un xer adult se indoaie de la mijlocpe langa jumatateea inferioara a trupului sau si se uneste cu cealalta jumatate pana cand devine o sfera. Dupa ce moleculele lui sau aranjat in asa fel incat a devenit o sfera, incepe sa se rostogoleasca pana intalneste alte sfere asemanatoare si vor forma impreuna o masa de aemenea corpuri, aflate pe orizontala, pe sol. Din mijlocul aceste mase, pe suprafata ei exterioara este expulzata o excrescenta sferica, viitoarea progenitura. Vezi: Lumi extraterestre – Planeta XER Personalitati – Melfior Ra (medium de contact)

Se pronunta xpotaz. Sunt oameni si mai ales copii care afirma ca au vazut sau ca au avut vise in sau care erau luati in locuri indepartate de catre elfi… oameni micuti cu urechi ascutite, ochii ca doua margele si piele zbarcita. Cei care au fost vizitati de catre xpotz au implanturi de tip cristalin de aproximativ 9 cm in zona spatelui sau a gatului si sufera de dureri de cap.

The text seems to originate at this blog http://www.rufon.org/forum/index.php?topic=158.15 Googling a portion of the text you will find that page and google offers to machine-translate it. It is obvious from inspection it is about some golden-yellow people from the planet Xer who are 3-4 meters tall. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

December 15

Iz-rye-ell

I just had the unfortunate experience of being bombarded with Christmas songs as I shopped. But one bit actually stood out. Someone was singing The First Noel. In the line "Born is the king of Israel", the final word was pronounced as if it was spelt "Iz-rye-ell", with a very obvious "rye", as if it rhymed with "die" or "sigh" or "pie". I am far more used to hearing "Is-ray-ell", with not much emphasis on the "e". (Excuse my absence of skill at proper phonetic representation. I've tried and failed in that area.) The singer was using an American accent of some sort (as is common with most Christmas muzak we suffer), but could have been from anywhere. Does any normal speaker really say "Iz-rye-ell", or is it just some kind of musical/poetical licence? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The iz-rye-ell pronunciation is closer to the Latin than your "ray" pronunciation. Iz-rah-ell is how I would have my choir sing it. In other words, with the "a" the same as in "father". μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

How about in ancient Hebrew? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Israel (name) gives the Hebrew, Yisra'el, which separates the a and e by a glottal stop (like uh-oh) rather than the y glide you heard in the recording "Izra-yel". μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The folks who sing it "Iz-rye-ell" are probably the same ones who do the Star-Spangled banner and sing of the "per-ul-iss" fight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

But Iz-rye-ell is about as close you can come in native English phonemes to a good pronunciation of the Latin. You are not suggesting they sing Iz-ree-ull, are you? μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In my day, in church and such, it was sung as "izz-rah-ell". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is what I myself would do ("izz-rah-ell") as well. But final syllables ending in ah or those preceding vowels without a transitional glide (a w or a y in between) are quite marked in English as foreign or expressive terms, like Panama or bah! or ah! and Ma and Pa. You don't find standard native English nouns or verbs that end in ah or have a sequence of sounds like ah-eh internally. But adding a y between the ah and the ell turns the foreign sounding iz-rah-ell into the very similar and native sounding iz-rye-ell. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no question that the English pronunciation of Israel has slid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And likewise in that league is the oldie "Sweet Adeline", which was originally sung properly, as "ad-eh-line" but after some decades somehow evolved into "ad-oh-line". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's reserved for song, basically. In speaking, it's IS-reel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When who is speaking? RNealK (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Fidelity Bank Nigeria

Could someone translate what's in the Reference section (Arabic?) and see if it's of any use? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to what you are asking about? μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume Fidelity Bank Nigeria#References, but given Clarityfiend's username, you would expect better. Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate gives

"I want to know the way that enables me to know how to get money from someone who wants to send to my balance and are found at the institution"

so I would say no. I've deleted it and left a message at the originator's talk page. Rojomoke (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)