Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:32, 22 August 2015

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

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.

August 15

What is the correct wording? Me or I?

What is the correct wording? And why? Sentence "A": I would like you (and me) to draft a new contract for the client. Sentence "B": I would like you (and I) to draft a new contract for the client. I can't determine which is correct, because they both sound good and they both sound bad. It seems like "me" could be correct, because "me" is a direct object of the verb "like". (I think?) But, it also seems like "I" could be correct, because the sentence is basically saying "I would like for it to be the case that you and I draft a new contract" (in which case, the "you and I" phrase seems like the subject of the clause ("we will draft a new contract"). (I think?) Help! Two additional comments: (1) I understand that these sentence can be re-phrased to avoid this issue. But, I am not interested in re-phrasing. I am curious about the correct wording in this particular situation. And: (2) If the parentheses are causing some type of problem here – which I do not think they are – then erase the parentheses and use the same exact sentences without the parentheses. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "you and me" with us, and "you and I" with "we", and see how it sounds.

In this case:

(A) I would like ~~you (and me)~~ us to draft a new contract for the client.

(B) I would like ~~you (and I)~~ we to draft a new contract for the client.

As you can see, (A) is grammatically correct. The reason for this is that it the clearest and most natural way to say it.

That is, of course, if your definition of "grammatically correct" is "the clearest and most natural way to say it". If your definition of "grammatically correct" is "what it says is correct in grammar textbooks", YMMV, etc.

--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A is correct because "me" is an object pronoun while "I" is a subject pronoun. In this sentence, the first "I" is the subject, the verb phrase "would like" is the predicate, "you and me" is the object, while everything following is an infinitive clause, a type of modifiying phrase. Complex infinitive clauses may confuse the sentence, if you use a grammatical analogue which does not have such length, such as "I would like you and I to go" or "I would like you and me to go" it is clear that the second of those is the better sentence, because the core of the thought is "I would like (something). Since the (something) is an object of the sentence, you need to use the object form of the pronouns (in this case, me). Unfortunately, English is horribly deficient in its second person pronouns, which is probably the source of some of the confusion. Modern English is limited to using "You" for all sorts of second person pronouns (plural and singular, subject and object). Older varieties of English had a more robust set of pronouns (You, ye, thee, thou, etc.) which would have made the grammar clearer. Alas, that's English for you. --Jayron 32 06:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. OK. It's starting to make sense. I went back and re-read my original question above. It made me think of a second question. Let's examine this sentence: "I would like for it to be the case that you and I draft a new contract." In that sentence, the phrase "you and I" is correct, yes? It would not be "you and me" in that example. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the phrase "You and I draft a new contract" works as a standalone sentence. The verb "draft" is not in infinitive form, but rather conjugated as an active verb, and as such, "you and I" is the subject of the sentence. Compare to "It would be best for you and me to draft a new contract". In that case, the verb form "to draft" is infinitive, so "you and [I/me] is not the subject, but rather the object of "It would be best for...", and so "me" works there. The clue that usually helps me remember is to look for the verb following the pronouns. If it's an infinitive verb (to [whatever]), then use the object pronoun "me". If it's an active verb (no "to..." bit) then use the subject pronoun "I". --Jayron 32 07:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say "I would like us to draft a new contract"? It's doubleplus-grammatically correct*, because not only is it the clearest and most natural way to say it, it is also the simplest way to say it. (* According to my lunatic-left of descriptivism definition, that is. I'm heading towards 1 000 articles now, written free of unnecessary fetters like prescriptive style and grammar.) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. And Jayron32's answer below is good, also. The actual reason is this. I was telling the other person that I wanted him to draft a new contract. After I had typed that, I realized that maybe he was not aware that I also wanted to be a part of that effort. In other words, the effort (of drafting a new contract) was to be a collaborative effort with both of us (him and me). If I just stated "I want you to draft the new contract", I was afraid that he would get the wrong perception/impression that he was doing the job alone and that I myself was not going to be involved in the project, alongside him. All of this came as a quick after-thought, as I was typing. So, I quickly threw in the "and me" in parentheses, assuming that it cleared things up. In other words, the project was a two-person job (him and me), and not a one-person job (just him). After I typed it and later re-read it, the wording seemed odd and prompted me to post my question here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with us/we in English is that (as another one of English's deficiencies) the pronoun has different meanings. It can mean "only yourself and myself", or it can me "Myself and someone else" or it can mean "Myself and yourself and other people". Other languages have multiple words for each of those senses, a linguistic concept known as Clusivity; in English we need to use the convoluted terms "Inclusive we" and "Exclusive we" to highlight those concept. English has only the one word meaning all of these senses; if you want to specific that only I and you are doing an action, and intentionally do not want to include any third parties in your expression, we/us is inadequate, so you have to say "You and I" or "You and me". --Jayron 32 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of technical-speak in the responses to both questions. Here's the quick and dirty solution. Leave out the 'you', and the correct form, 'I' or 'me' will immediately become apparent. For example, "I would like you (and I) to draft a new contract for the client." So, leaving out the 'you' results in "I would like I to draft a new contract..." Now, does that sound right? Akld guy (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of "technical" speak in the replies. But, that is because I asked "why". I did not just want the correct answer, but also the reason for the correct answer. Hence, the technical speak. Which I found helpful. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32, that may be a deficiency of English, but that particular "deficiency" is shared by a great many languages. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it does explain why we need to use the phrasing "You and I" or "you and me" sometimes. --Jayron 32 21:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. Above, you are told: As you can see, (A) is grammatically correct. The reason for this is that it the clearest and most natural way to say it.

Uh, no. Let's keep things simple for a moment by avoiding coordination (or "conjunction" as old-fashioned sources term it). In "I would like us/*we to draft a new contract for the client", "we" is not incorrect because it's unclear or unnatural; it's unnatural because it's ungrammatical. "Us" is grammatical, and it's therefore natural.

Right, now for coordination (simply, linking via "and", "or" or "but"). Coordination is well known for doing odd things to case assignment. Few native speakers, if any, doubt that "Let's keep this between us" is grammatical. Few, if any, say *"Let's keep this between we". But we do hear ^%"Let's keep this between you and I" from a lot of native speakers. What's going on here? The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (recommended!) devotes most of p.463 to this. It does not purport to give a simple answer, saying that hypercorrection is very likely to be a factor but does not explain everything. It does point out that the first person singular is anomalous: tweaking your example for person, "I would like you and her/^???she to draft a new contract for the client" would present a simpler choice.

And so, back to your example. "I would like you and me to draft a new contract for the client": unquestionably grammatical. (Idiomaticity is a different matter. In most situations one could say something that might well sound more natural, e.g. "Let's draft a new contract for the client".) ^%"I would like you and I to draft a new contract for the client": grammatical for a significant percentage of native speakers of English, ungrammatical for a significant percentage of ditto. (I'm among the latter, as it happens.)

Hungry for more? There's this (PDF), this (PDF; yes, only an honors thesis, but one that Arnold Zwicky believes is worth net publication); and also, to show that this kind of oddity is not specific to English, this (PDF) on Spanish. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very thorough reply. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad if I've been of help. Meanwhile, I notice sloppiness in what I wrote: "'Us' is grammatical, and it's therefore natural." No! Being grammatical is a necessary condition for sounding natural (other perhaps than in some freak constructions), but it's not a sufficient condition. ("You and I and she would like you and me and her to draft a new contract and a new memorandum of understanding and a new lunch menu and a new dinner menu for this hamster" is grammatical but nevertheless bizarre.) Incidentally, while The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language may give you good value, it is large (over 1800 pages) and expensive. I highly recommend the compact and affordable introductory version, Huddleston and Pullum's A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Akld guy hinted above, the trick to all I/me confusion is to eliminate everyone but yourself from the sentence.

They asked Bob and I to buy tickets.
They asked Bob and me to buy tickets.
They asked ~~Bob and~~ I to buy tickets.
They asked ~~Bob and~~ me to buy tickets.

The second choice clearly sounds correct, so you would use "me" in this sentence.

It works every time, and you don't need to understand any fancy grammatical concepts or jargon. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above is wrong. "Me and Bob bought tickets" is grammatical English, though "me bought tickets" isn't. The only time you need to say "I and ..." or "... and I" is when trying to impress linguistically ignorant people, and in that case you may as well use it in object position too because they'll probably expect that. Otherwise, use the accusatives (me, us, him) when in doubt, because that seems to be the rule most native speakers follow.

Thomas Grano's thesis (which Hoary linked above) has a bunch of examples that break the prescriptive rules, like "They got there before me" (despite "They got there before I did"), "Silly me forgot to bring a jacket", and "All debts are cleerd betweene you and I" (Shakespeare, 1596). -- BenRG (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that just muddied the waters. Excellent counter-examples. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note this thread has been continued (Bumped) under the same title on August 21. Akld guy (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By default

There is the phrase: "By default, appointment will be temporary, lasting any time up to a year." What does by default mean? Does it really mean anything? Is there another way to put it more clearly? Does the phrase allow any permanent appointments to be made? --Pxos (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"By default" means "unless otherwise agreed". 5.150.92.20 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5.150.92.20 (talk) is one of several London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

Or, more generally, it means "unless something else is done". This term is often used in computer science, meaning the value a variable will have unless otherwise specified. For example, a US web site might ask customers which country they are from, and default to the US, meaning they don't have to select the US, it's already pre-selected. — StuRat — continues after insertion below

Yes, that's exactly how it would be used in software. But strangely, this doesn't work here, since the default here is not a specific predecided value, as in "By default, appointment will be two months." You can't really agree on an assignment to be limited unless you agree on the limit. By leaving the duration vague, there is no value to default to. Therefore, I think it's just a misuse of the term "default". Likewise, 5.150.92.20's and User:StuRats good translations "unless otherwise agreed / something else is done" become as meaningless as the German proverb "When the rooster crows on the dung heap, the weather will change, or it will stay the way it is". — Sebastian 15:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the seemingly unrelated use of the word in economics, where "default" means you fail to pay your bills at the agreed upon time. I suspect there was a relationship, though, in that the "default behavior", if nothing was done (that is, if the bills were not paid), was once seizure of assets. (Bankruptcy law somewhat complicated matters, though.)

In your example, they might mean that it can be renewed after a year, in which case saying that explicitly would be clearer. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See definition 5 here. --Jayron 32 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5a: "a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative". Is there anyone who thinks the phrase in the example is sloppy writing? Is "permanent appointment" a viable alternative? StuRat writes "they might mean that...". So everyone is left guessing because the phrase "by default" creates only confusion and no clarity to the sentence. It could be replaced with "normally", "thus far", or even "without exception", if the latter is true. --Pxos (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear to me, but I agree that 5.150.92.20's suggestion of "unless otherwise agreed" would have avoided any confusion. Dbfirs 12:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the phrase "by default" adds is an aspect of mechanics or process, even though it is often a passive process. That is to say, not only does the default kick in unless otherwise agreed, but also the default actually does kick in unless othewise agreed. Something (the default) actually does happen/change/come into play. Since the OP talks about an "appointment" being made, perhaps this process aspect of "by default" is formally unnecessary here. But if one wants to emphasize the existence of the process, then it is reasonable to include that language here. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

Genitive apostrophe

Why is there no genitive apostrophe in "King James Bible" (James')? Rex Sueciæ ✎ 07:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It was named after him; it didn't belong to him. cf. Queen Elizabeth Hospital etc.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was not his Bible, just a translation of it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks. I do realise all that of course. The question was more semantic. The Bible translations in Swedish are also named after kings but have a geniteve -s, e.g. sv:Gustav Vasas bibel and sv:Karl XII:s bibel. So the languages treat the construction differently. Rex Sueciæ ✎ 10:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See King James Version#Name for the details. As with most Bible translations of the era, it doesn't have an "official" name (apart from "The Holy Bible"). It was first referred to as "King James's Bible" (with possessive) in 1797, "the authorized version" in 1801, and "the King James Bible" (no possessive) in 1856. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tevildo! Very interesting. I must have missed that paragraph in the article. So historically there has been a possessive form also in English in these cases. Thank you all! Rex Sueciæ ✎ 06:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

August 18

Steve Jobs and Apple

Pretty sure this is the right place...what does history say about referring to past events? For example, Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple from 1997-2011. Many articles about Apple products released during that time period now say "then-CEO" or "former CEO". Is that right? It just seems wrong to me. He was CEO then, period, and i think the reader can understand that too, that if it's an article about the iPhone 4, a 2010 product, he was CEO and there's no need to annotate "former" or "then-CEO" whenever you refer to him.

Of course, if I'm off my rocker wit this one, I'll draw down on this. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way to avoid a possible ambiguity. Whether it's actually ambiguous or not depends on many things, including the world-knowledge and cultural identity of the reader, and how much time has passed. Qualifying it as "then-CEO" eliminates the ambiguity for all time. ("Former CEO" doesn't, because it introduces another possible ambiguity). I have noticed a similar issue in Bradford Playhouse, where the article currently says that the building was called the Priestley when it first opened in 1937. I'm almost certain that this is incorrect, and arises from misunderstanding an account written during the period when it was called the Priestley in the late 90's. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What ColinFine said. If "then-" isn't present, the reader is left with the impression that Steve Jobs may still be CEO to this day. We mustn't assume that everyone knows that he passed away in 2011. We should take care to spell it out, even if the result is a little more wordy than it otherwise would be. Akld guy (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, including the verbiage only helps by convention, not by semantics. E.g. "Cheng went to Los Angeles with his wife at the time, Sue." - readers may well infer that they are no longer married, but the sentence is still true and accurate even if they are still married. See also Mitch Hedburg's classic joke in the same vein "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: You've reversed the implementation in order to be contrary. If Cheng and his wife are still married, there's no need to specify "at the time" and in fact an ambiguity is created by doing so, even though it's semantically true. If Steve Jobs were still alive and CEO today, there would be no sense in saying "then-CEO" when referring to 2010. When I recommended spelling it out, I meant only in the case where the situation is no longer true, as I'm sure you realise. Akld guy (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On his radio programme, Terry Wogan refers to "my first wife". The joke is that she is, and remains, his only wife. Widneymanor (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More commonly, "the current Mrs Wogan".--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy:Yes, I'll cop to being contrary there, that's how I started the post :) But I thought it was worth pointing out that the meaning of the usage is an inference based on custom, not literal semantics. A literal interpretation of "then CEO" or "wife at the time" carries no extra meaning, the extra meaning is all via implication. Maybe it's not terribly relevant, but I thought OP might appreciate the indication that the usage is due to convention and custom, i.e. it's reasonable that it feels wrong to some readers, and it's also the concept behind several jokes. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the old story about a guy taking a walk on a beach at sunset, and he comes across a stunning blonde. He says to her, "You remind me of my first wife". She says, "Oh, really? That's nice. How many times have you been married?". He looks surprised, and replies, "Oh, I've never been married". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any stats on how well that pickup line works? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a persistent rumour that WP has an article on everything, but I choose not to believe it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pick-up lines. If there are any well sourced statistics on the success thereof, it should be added there. --Jayron 32 15:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Korean: "노닐던"

What does "노닐던" mean in Korean? It's used in context in ko:노들역. I'm assuming the citation form is 노닐다, but I can't find it in a dictionary. --Amble (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help deciphering banking jargon

I'm trying to decipher this banking message regarding a failed wire transfer(apologies in advance for the all caps):

UNABLE TO APPLY FUNDS DUE TO UTA INSUFF INFO FULL BNF ADDR 12 DIGIT AC NBR NEED FULL BBK[2]

My best guess is this:

Unable to apply funds due to insufficient information available. The full "BNF" address is needed, as well as the 12 digit account number.

But I'm still not sure about the following phrases: UTA, BNF ADDR, AC NBR, BBK. Any and all help is greatly appreciated. My other car is a cadr (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To fill in one of the gaps, I'm fairly sure that BNF = Beneficiary (i.e. the intended recipient of the transfer), and AC NBR = Account Number as you already suggested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBK is beneficiary bank. No joy on "UTA" yet. Tevildo (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTA I'm not sure on, could the TA be Target Account? BNF ADDR = Beneficiary Address, AC NBR = Account Number, BBK = Beneficiary Bank. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, which would make it unknown/unidentified/un-somethinged target account. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTA = Unable To Apply [3]. UTA due to UTA. --Amble (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "UTA" means "under trust agreement". --Thomprod (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the wire room for the bank I work for to see if they could help translate - they agree with the above translations for BNF, AC NBR, and BBK. UTA is a common abbreviation for "Unable To Apply", which seems redundant but probably not. "Unable to apply funds due to" is likely the name of the field, and "UTA..." is where the person processing the return started typing. That would explain why the first part is in actual words and why the rest is in abbreviations (common because the fields they have to work with have character limits). The lack of context, punctuation, or conjunctions make it pretty well impossible to translate reliably into English, but it looks to me like they need the beneficiary's address, a 12-digit account number, and full information on the beneficiary bank (which could be any number of things but likely includes at least a routing number or SWIFT code). The bank processing the wire should be able to provide more detailed information on the errors here since they'll have the wire in hand and be able to see what was originally submitted. 12.71.77.125 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This tells us a lot about the state of communication in 2015. They spend billions on IT applications, yet the simple act of communicating a simple message to a customer seems beyond them. I don't believe it is beyond them; nor do I assume malice. I assume indifference. They don't love us enough. Or at all. And that's sad. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want love, you go to another type of establishment. Banks screw you in an entirely different manner. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: If it was just provided to the customer without explanation or assistance, then I agree with indifference and would call that a pretty big failure in customer service. (One which I would never permit from my staff...) That would be akin to handing someone a printout of the data from a medical test without interpretation, or putting raw weather model data up somewhere and calling it a forecast. I am curious as to how this wound up in My other car is a cadr's hands - I've been in retail banking nearly 15 years (periodically processing wires for customers the whole time) and I've only very rarely seen abbreviated wire messages like that, and never without an explanation attached directly to it. 12.71.77.125 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Mongolian pronunciation of Оюу Толгой

Could someone point me to video or audio of the correct pronunciation of Оюу Толгой? If not, a basic phonetic pronunciation? Hack (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a Youtube channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6w-NTNwZfW2uZzCe3f7MPg, which has lots of local news (as well as some cheesy music videos) about the mine. After listening to a bunch of the speakers (and checking some online sources on Mongolian pronounciation) it seems that it's either Oyu/Oyou Tolgoi or Tolchoi, interchangably. The 'г' is usually pronounced like a 'g' in 'garden', but in this case many seem to rather use a consonant closer to [x] or [χ] which isn't that common in English, but familiar from Spanish pronounciation of 'Jesus', for example. Hope that helps, but please note that I'm not a native speaker. Rh73 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closest one can get from his/her English throat is OH-yoo TOHL-goy. It's possible to say also AW-yoo TAWL-goy or TOL-goy. Note the Mongolian o is rather short in these words (unlike the English oh and aw).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian words are stressed on the initial syllable, unless there are any long vowels or diphthongs elsewhere in the word, in which case the first long vowel or diphthong carries the stress. Given that the ⟨юу⟩ represents a long vowel (actually the iotified version of the long vowel ⟨уу⟩), and the ⟨ой⟩ is a diphthong, I'd think that both words are stressed on the second syllable, so probably oh-YOO tohl-GOY is a more accurate approximation, stress-wise. --Theurgist (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probabaly right, I've followed Russian (Soviet) sources that didn't much explain the stress patterns.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Good people" just mean "citizens"?

I'm reading several translations of Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris ("NDP") at the same time and I find that most of the translations translate the French term "Parisiens" as the "good people of Paris".

For example, Frederic Shoberl translated

"Il y a aujourd’hui trois cent quarante-huit ans six mois et dix-neuf jours que les Parisiens s’éveillèrent au bruit de toutes les cloches sonnant à grande volée..."

as

"It is this day three hundred and forty-eight years six months and nineteen days since the good people of Paris were awakened by a grand peal from all the bells...".

Collins says the term "good people" mean "fairies". But I don't think that's what it actually mean in NDP or its translations.

I wonder what the exact meaning of "good people" is. Does it just mean "citizen(s)"? Is it an archaic or poetic term whose meaning is figurative? Why did the translators decide to use the term "good people (of Paris)" instead of the direct term "Parisian" or something like that?

--183.89.89.177 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a poetic flourish. 'Burghers' would be better than 'citizens', but 'Parisians' is probably even better. My own translation would be "Three hundred and forty-eight years, six months and nineteen days ago today, Parisians awoke to the sound of all the bells sounding a great peal..." AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on whether the original was marked as referring to people of elevated status. "The good people of Paris" sounds like politician-speak to make the hoi polloi feel better about themselves - would the original sound the same way or was it a straightforward demonym? 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Cliché. Google Ngrams shows it to be rather less prevalent nowadays than in its 1840-80 heyday. Whilst it now does seem to be simply a synonym for 'inhabitants of', it once had, and still retains some of, the sense of the 'good people' of a particular place being contrasted to the 'less good people' of another. See, for example, here. I'd imagine that's what the translator was going for - the image of good Parisians sleeping soundly before being woken by the peal of bells portending later events. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairies" is a completely different use. Forget that.

"Good people" does have some sense that suggests the notion of "upstanding citizens" as opposed to "riff-raff". But as Cucumber Mike said, it's a cliché or poetic flourish meant to add a little color to the scene. Interesting that several different translations went there, and that all the subsequent ones bought into color the original translator painted. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. Interestingly, I also find that sometimes the English translators translated the same terms differently (resulting in completely different meanings). Examples:

#	French	translation
1	ni une châsse menée en procession	nor a procession with the shrine of some saint — Frederic Shoberl
		nor a hunt led along in procession — Isabel F. Hapgood
		it was not a reliquary being carried in procession – John Sturrock
2	ni même une belle pendaison de larrons et de larronnesses à la Justice de Paris	nor even an execution of rogues of either sex before the Palace of Justice of Paris – Frederic Shoberl
		nor even a pretty hanging of male and female thieves by the courts of Paris – Isabel F. Hapgood
		it was not even a fine hanging of male and female thieves on the gallows of Paris – John Sturrock

I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that there's no accurate translation of NDP available at the moment. My French is so basic. Maybe I need to resume my French lessons so that I'd be able to enjoy the original French novel directly. T T --183.89.89.177 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first example is amusing. It's 'chasse' (hunt) vs 'châsse' (shrine), so it seems Hapgood made a little mistake here. In the second example, Shoberl omitted 'belle' (nice/fine) and 'of either sex' sounds kinda clunky and distanced. Rather than being disappointed, I'd become curious if those inaccuracies were intentional (ex. Did Shoberl's version get censored because hanging people isn't a nice thing?) or caused by special circumstances (ex. Was Hapgood's version based on a transcript with a typo?). Rh73 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is not an exact science. The first example, as pointed out, includes one of the translators making a basic mistake, but in the second case, all three renderings into English convey the meaning of the original French. The rest is stylistic preference: for example, "larronesses" is hardly ever used in French (the masculine, "larron" is deliberately old-fashioned). Victor Hugo is using a stylistic flourish with that term, but it can't really be perfectly reproduced in English. "Male and female thieves" is too prosaic to match Hugo, but gives the exact meaning, while "rogues of either sex" gets closer to the original turn of phrase. Une "belle pendaison" is deliberately sarcastic, from a XIXth century opponent of public hangings who thinks any such display is barbaric (Notre-Dame de Paris is set in medieval Paris). This time, the first translation completely avoids this meaning, and the latter two don't make the point as strongly as Hugo. And that's just one phrase (not even a complete sentence) from a 400-page book in the original French. The challenge of translating such a literary work is truly daunting, so it's no wonder that someone wiull eventually come along and think he can do it better. That shouldn't prevent anyone from reading a translation, though. --Xuxl (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that Hapgood's translation is notoriously terrible and literal – for example, she almost invariably translates the French souvenir as, well, "souvenir", even when the context shows it clearly means "memory" ("Brevet, take a good look at the accused, recall your souvenirs, and tell us on your soul and conscience, if you persist in recognizing this man as your former companion in the galleys, Jean Valjean?) – and she doesn't make attempt at translating puns, so characters frequently break out in nonsequiturs. Unfortunately, because it's on Project Gutenberg, her version is also one of the commonest on the web (it's the version on Wikisource!) I hear her Russian translations are better, but I wouldn't recommend trying to use her Les Mis to get into Hugo's mind. Smurrayinchester 08:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the table above, John Sturrock was mislinked to the article about the Olympic athlete of the same name. I've removed the brackets, but a better solution might be to create a John Sturrock disamb page or the John Sturrock (translator) article. On the other hand, I don't know whether this John Sturrock will meet the notability criterion. Someone might be interested in taking it further...but not on this page please.Akld guy (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian English

I've recently been editing a BLP article for sources and accuracy. The article creator and main contributor to the article uses the same odd capitalization as the article subject. Titles such as Music Journalist, Spokesman, Activist, Social Media Personality are capitalized. This suggests that they are the same person, unless this is something typical for Nigerian English. Can it be just because they are both from Nigeria? Sjö (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak to this directly. Will say that sometimes people bring over capitalization rules from their first languages, and those aren't always right here. (Example: In German, all nouns are capitalized, always.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be also that they both are trying to keep the same style in accordance to the subject's style for consistency. Akseli9 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such capitalization is common enough from people not highly educated in Standard English that I would draw no conclusions from it. (Time magazine used to capitalize all such terms when they appeared before a name: "Boxing Fan Bob Smith".) —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See False title, which describes this (and even mentions the Time Magazine usage). Capitalization or not, the use of false titles is usually discouraged in formal writing; thus you wouldn't say something like "social media personality Jane Doe", even uncapitalized. You'd say instead "Jane Doe, a social media personality". The usage has become more prevalent in recent decades, to the point where many people in casual usage wouldn't even notice the problem, but it is still often frowned upon. --Jayron 32 00:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're straying. The article contained language like "[Name] is a Music Journalist, Spokesman, Activist and Social Media Personality," though few if any Time-style false titles. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pun lost in translation in "Danger: Diabolik"?

In Mario Bavo's campy (but wonderful) 1968 film Danger: Diabolik, one of Inspector Ginko's outrageous schemes to outwit Diabolik is referred to as "Operation Gold Van". I've always assumed this is a pun in the original Italian, but I don't speak Italian well enough to prove my theory. For those who haven't seen the film, the scheme involves filling a specialized train car with a gold bar so large one man cannot steal it (spoiler alert: Diabolik steals it anyway). Can anyone with a better knowledge of Italian than I shed light on this? I can't stand it when there's a joke I'm not getting! Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about that one, but for an interesting bit of Italian/English wordplay translation, you might like to read The Icicle Thief. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a pun on the 1966 Lightning Bolt (film) whose original Italian title was Operazione Goldman. I concur that Danger: Diabolik is very funny and well worth a watch: oddly, I can't remember if I saw it in an English language version, with English subtitles, or in the original unvarnished Italian (which I can't speak).

Incidentally, I'm not any kind of an Italian film expert – I simply put "Operation Gold" into the Wikipedia search box and investigated what came up. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never found a version of the film in Italian, even when I saw it on the big screen at the AFI Silver, so it may never have been distributed in that language. I do know that many of the film's events were based on classic adventures from the comics, so I thought maybe the 'Gold Van' pun came from there, but I don't know of the best way the research that. I will seek out Lightning Bolt (film), sounds like a fun film to watch even if it doesn't answer my question.Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's got a real brewery in it! What more could one ask? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Elder / Eldest / Older / Oldest

Hi. In a conversation yesterday I was talking about the youngest of 3 brothers, and at one point made a comment comparing him to the oldest of the 3. It went something like "... his elder, no eldest, no older, no oldest...". 'Older brother' to my ( O'level, grade B) mind is right, because he has only 2, but to my reasonably well trained (UK) ears, 'his older brother' implies he has only one. Originally using elder only confuses me further, where 'eldest' sounds like it works, even though he only has 2. Thanks for any help. 81.153.169.191 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this which should help you. Bazza (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"-est" always applies to groups of 3 or more. "-er" always applies to groups of exactly 2. So the "oldest" would only work if you have more than one brother. The difference between "eld-" and "old-" is dialectical. They are perfect synonyms. See comparative and superlative. --Jayron 32 14:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, thanks for the quick reply, but my understanding still hasn't reconciled itself with my ear. About half way down the reference from Bazza is "My older sister is coming to stay with us at the weekend", which I think the article is using as an example to use when I have exactly 2 sisters. But if someone told me their older sister was coming to stay, I would assume that she had one sister, who was older.81.153.169.191 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. To clarify: the number includes yourself in usual usage. Thus, if there are three sisters in my family, including myself, I would use "Oldest". If I had only one sister I would use "Older". --Jayron 32 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, but if in usual usage I introduced you to Jayron, my younger sister, you would really assume I had 2 sisters? 81.153.169.191 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I guessed the gender wrongly. I've only taught one Jayron (F), whose cousin was also called Jayron (M). I flipped a coin. (And would write this in small text, as seems the custom, but I'm not sure how.81.153.169.191 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (or a male in this case). No, the comparative/superlative usage in this case, always assumes the self in the count. So, if my family has 3 siblings (lets use the word siblings, to avoid the uncomfortableness of not being sure of gender):

Chris, Age 31
Terry, Age 29
Stacy (me) Age 25

Then Chris is my oldest sibling, and Terry is my older sibling. If we had a family like this:

Jamie, Age 31
Francis (me) Age 27

Then Jamie is my older sibling, and we would never use "est". If the family looked like this:

Tracy, Age 30
Sam (me), Age 27
Jordan, Age 25

Then you would say Tracy is my older sibling (since I am just comparing Tracy to myself), and Jordan is my younger sibling, but you would say that Tracy is the oldest of the family (as in that usage, we're including all three). I hope that helps. --Jayron 32 15:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does, and answers my original question. Thank-you. If I'm not trying your patience too much: if someone tells me about their 'older sibling, can I tell if they are Francis talking about Jamie (which I would assume), or Stacy talking about Terry (which I wouldn't - I would probably use something like 'middle sibling')? And if I go back to introducing you to Jayron, my younger sibling, all you can be sure of is that I have at least one sibling, at least one of whom is younger than me? 81.153.169.191 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "-er" suffix presents some ambiguity, as it doesn't give any indication of order or number, only that it's someone who is older or younger; -est is reserved for the extreme one only. So, you could have ten siblings, and you can be the last born, and you'd call all except the first born your "older" sibling. The firstborn (and ONLY the first born) would be your oldest sibling. --Jayron 32 16:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Older" can sometimes include the oldest. E.g. "I have two older sisters" is perfectly correct, even though one of them has to be the oldest. If I refer to my oldest sister as "My older sister Sally", I'm not wrong, because she's still older than me. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose if they were twins, you could even have two oldest sisters... --Jayron 32 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"uncomfortableness"? What's wrong with discomfort, lol. Akld guy (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct wording? Me or I?

Bumped. This thread is too interesting and informative to be archived yet. This thread contains text and references copied from the 15 August 2015 "Reference desk/Language" discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

old thread from Aug 15-20