Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.102.187.12 (talk) at 02:31, 16 September 2013 (→‎Need some help from a wordsmith). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:


Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Look up Wiktionary:Translation requests in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


September 10

Jeg snakker ikke norsk godt

Vennligst sjekk denne redigeringen. Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compounding is less modest in Norwegian than in English, so it is energieigentilstander, energiegenverdien, and so on. With your final sentence (Disse energi egenverdiene være avhengig av volumet, er partisjonsfunksjonen således en funksjon av temperaturen T og volumet V), I'm a bit unsure what you are trying to say. Is an English equivalent "Because these energy eigenvalues are independent of volume, the partition function is a function of temperature T and volume V"? Gabbe (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps "These energy eigenvalues are independent of volume, the partition function is thus a function of temperature T and volume V"? Gabbe (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The energy eigenvalues do depend on the volume, what I want to say is that the volume dependence of the partition function Z comes from the fact that the energy eigenvalues depend on the volume (the formula for Z contains an explicit "T" but you don't see a "V" in there, so people not familiar with the subject can ask "how can Z depend on V?"). Count Iblis (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

synonyms

I'm trying to find a synonym for severe corporal punishment. Are there any of them?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious for "normal" corporal punishment would be "paddling". If it's severe, it's probably "abuse". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flagellation is what I would go for, that or flogging. These are just synonyms though, attaching levels of severity to descriptors rather than actual types of punishment is just a matter of opinion. Here is a few synonyms, which one sounds the most severe to you Biggs Pliff (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the OP could define "severe". Paddling used to be allowed in some schools (maybe still is), and some would regard that, or for that matter any corporal punishment, as severe and abusive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that similar to "thrashing"?142.255.103.121 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Thrashing" is one of countless synonyms for "a severe beating". Maybe you could define more specifically what you're looking for? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Caning" seems used most often in early-to-mid English 20th century writings. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin motto

"Rum, sodomy and the lash" would be a good motto for any half-decent school, university, military establishment, political party, organised religion, or society of voluntary encyclopedia editors.

I wonder what the Latin version is. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't do that sort of thing at my school. Playing football on pavement at 45 degrees F. was about as bad as it got. Latin doesn't seem to have a word for "rum", otherwise you could invent the saying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone improve on Rhomium, peccatum Sodomiticum flagellumque? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about Aquavitae : Pedicatio : Flagellum? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit. The ablative is better than the accusative. FLAGELLATIONE, MELICRATO, ET BVLGARITATE. I.e., "by (means of) flagellation, mead, and buggery". μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the order? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solely because the rhythm sounded better to me. The bulgaritas and melicratum changes were somewhat arbitrary (as one is newer and one older) and I went with them for sound over rhomio and p.s. Same thing with et over -que, the rhythm sounded better. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And "pedicatio", maybe? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, pedicatione is less likely to offend people of a certain nationality. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PEDICATIONE, RHOMIO, ET FLAGELLO is shorter and has a nice trochaic meter to it as well. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suddenly, paddling with a cricket bat sized board seems tame by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, just don't forget those commas, otherwise it's sodomy by means of rum and whip. Which sounds like fun, too. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You go first, Angr.
Thanks for the wording, Medeis. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. My favorite jobs have all been as a copy writer. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

about "Müllers"

Dear Editors!

I noticed that in enwiki articles (and therefore in other Wikipedias as well) in some of the infoboxes of animals not the proper zoologist's name is shown.

For example in the article List of authors of names published under the ICZN.

Salomon Müller (1804–1864) is shown as "S. Müller", while Johannes Peter Müller (1801–1858) is simply "Müller". However, in many articles the "Müller" link points to "Salomon Müller".

I think that the link "Müller" should refer to "Salomon Müller". There are two examples for it: Exilisciurus; Celebes Dwarf Squirrel.

The following zoologists can be found in their list:

DenesFeri (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that no one cares. DenesFeri (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might get more of a response if you bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or just be bold and fix it yourself! --ColinFine (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! But I wanted some opinions. But now I see that I must take in my own hands this matter. When someone makes an article, that person make sure that he/she do it right. No? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Clark is right. This is the reference desk for questions relating to language. Your query is more science-related. — SMUconlaw (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese character question

What are the Chinese characters in File:TeoChewTemple3Houston.JPG? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like "頭" (Mandarin tóu; simplified form: "头"). — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hospitalize

Is it true that this is originally an Americanism? And this might be too subjective but why is it unwanted? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a snippet from There's a Word for It - The Explosion of the American Language Since 1900, Sol Steinmetz's last book: "Among the words that made news early in the decade was the verb hospitalize ("to put in a hospital"). The word first appeared in print in 1901, though no doubt it had been widely used in common parlance for years. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) points out that the word was "frequently commented on as an unhappy formation," which accounts for its absence in the press before 1901. Opposition to this verb was in line with criticism of such verbs as finalize, deputize, jeopardize, theorize, and prioritize, which in the nineteenth century were condemned by critics as "pretentious and unnecessary jargon." [1]. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word is still frowned upon by some people here in the UK who would never use it, but it is gaining in acceptability. When I first heard "hospitalized", I thought it sounded as if it meant "made into a hospital" rather than "admitted to hospital". Dbfirs 22:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the website Grammar and Style in British English: A Comprehensive Guide for Students, Writers and Academics" writes:
"Usage. Americans have a fondness for transforming nouns and adjectives into -ize-ending verbs and, while this practice often makes for a greater economy of words (hospitalized rather than taken to hospital), it should be borne in mind that the new words are often objected to in British English. Hospitalized, in fact, whether spelt thus or with -ise, is forbidden by both The Guardian and The Times, The Guardian also objecting to finalize. In time, of course, the new verbs often settle into the language. Few people now object to computerise, democratise, globalise, pedestrianise and prioritise, or to their new concomitant nouns (computerisation etc.). But newcomers are almost always treated with derision. Burchfield cites the example of a woman whose unplanned pregnancy led her to regret that she had not had her partner condomized. In any event, the new verb should be avoided when there is a perfectly adequate one already in existence: burgle, not burglarise; pressure, not pressurise." "Appendix III: Word Wise", subsection "-ise- and -ize-ending verbs"
I couldn't find this mentioned in the style guides of The Guardian or The Times (which doesn't mean it can't be found). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of burgle strikes me as borderline bizarre, as I've generally thought of that as a jocular back-formation from burglar. Isn't it from The Pirates of Penzance? --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how jocular, but it does seem to be a back-formation from 1869, four years after the first appearance of "burglarize", according to etymonline. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought also: "When the enterprising burglar's not a burgling..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To "pressure" and to "pressurize" are not the same thing. And "taken to hospital" is an expression an American wouldn't use, as someone would say, "Since when did you become British?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Bugs isn't objecting to the expression "taken to (the) hospital" per se, but only to the omission of the the. --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather like the difference between "go to school" and "go to the school". I assume that Americans make this distinction? Dbfirs 12:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For once, I agree with American usage. The verbs "to pressure" and "to pressurise" now (since 1940) have different meanings in the UK, too. Dbfirs 01:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I now did find something in The Guardian 's style guide: "hospitalised do not use; say someone was taken (never "rushed") to hospital" [2]. (Idiotically, I googled for "hospitalized" instead of "hospitalised" + site:theguardian.com/styleguide). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would quibble over the meaning of "hospitalize". I think it only means "to admit to a hospital", not "to take to a hospital" (although Wiktionary uses both: To send to hospital; to admit (a person) to hospital). I claim that if I'm taken to the hospital's emergency room, treated there, and released without being admitted, no one would say that I was hospitalized. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Vietnamese place names

Is there a reliable place listing Sino-Vietnamese names for cities in Vietnam? Chinese characters were in official use until "recently" (not too differently from Korean) but most of our articles don't have them. Of the main Vietnamese cities only Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and Đà Nẵng do. Even the corresponding Vietnamese page is strangely not helpful most of the times. --151.41.140.58 (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this will give you what you're looking for, but there are a few online Chữ nôm dictionaries. This one lets you input Vietnamese words in Quốc Ngữ and it will give you equivalent characters. Just to test it, I tried with Lào Cai. It didn't give any results for the words searched together, but it did give a character for Lào and for Cai when searched separately. I know it's not optimal, but may be a place to start. Good luck.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia? Generally, Chinese Wikipedia articles for the Vietnamese cities have their Sino-Vietnamese names in the lede and Japanese Wikipedia articles have them in the infobox. Japanese list article for cities in Vietname have city names in Latin alphabet and Chinese character in addition to Japanese names. --Kusunose 02:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chữ nôm innovated thousands of characters for commonly used native Vietnamese words. The Chinese language characters in the Chinese/Japanese wikipedias may not always coincide with the names as written in Vietnamese Chữ nôm, which is what I think the OP is asking for.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan, Vietnamese place names are not commonly referred by Chinese characters but by katakana transliteration. Ho Chi Minh City article (ja:ホーチミン市) gives its Chinese character name as 城舗胡志明. 城舗 (Thành phố) is city in Vietnamese but not in Japanese (it is 市). The Chinese Wikipedia article (zh:胡志明市) also gives its Chinese name and Vietnamese name: "胡志明市（越南语：Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh／城舖胡志明）" (Chinese word for city is also 市), though their list article only lists Chinese names. --Kusunose 04:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike in Korean, Chinese characters no longer serve any official capacity in Vietnamese, meaning that they are not taught as a required subject in school nor are they used by the mass media, even to disambiguate names. This means that some place names don't have "official" Chinese character equivalences if they're named recently. For places with longer histories, the Sino-Vietnamese can be found in old Sinitic maps and atlases. DHN (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Yorkshire accent

Hi, is it just me or these people on this episode of Come Dine with Me don't have a very strong Yorkshire accent (except, perhaps, the girl in the red dress)? Sorry for asking the blooming obvious but, as you'll have gathered, a non-native speaker here. I'd really appreciate if you could help me. Thanks, --190.244.97.224 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The video can't be viewed here in the UK, so you're not likely to get many native speakers answering this one, unfortunately. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the episode, so I can't comment on the accents there except to say that pronunciations vary widely, even within Yorkshire. (In many British soaps, genuine regional accents stand out because of their rarity, with some of the actors making attempts to imitate the "local" pronunciation with varying success.) In many British regions, the local accent is gradually dying out as people move around the country and younger people are increasingly exposed to "BBC English". There is also a tendency, in "reality TV" programmes, for people to "talk proper" in front of the cameras. Dbfirs 07:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, there was an article on the BBC news website yesterday about a study showing that UK regional accents can be affected by TV viewing. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. Sorry about the link – I didn't consider the possibility of YouTube not working. In case you're curious, though, the episode aired on 2 September. Cheers, --190.244.97.224 (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Germany, so I can watch it, but as an American I'm not very good at placing English-English accents. To my unpolished ear, the politician's wife sounds very nearly RP. Jemma's accent reminds me of Jane Horrocks as Bubble on AbFab or of the accents I've heard on Coronation Street, so maybe she's from Manchester/Lancashire rather than Yorkshire. The man sounds generically "Northern English" to me (he says [ˈʊvən] rather than [ˈʌvən] for oven), and the third woman I can't place at all. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People in the UK can view it on 4oD. [3]. Three of the contestants have vaguely RP/upper class accents with no regional component my wife or I could determine. The fourth (Jemma) seems to come from the North West, not Yorkshire.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of Yorkshire is in the North West, of course, and more of it used to be! Dbfirs 18:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot again. Have a beer or the drink of your preference on me. You rock! Relieved to find out I'm not completely accent-deaf *preens*. But boy, is that thing complicated! Especially when, as an ESL student, RP/BBC/whatever pronunciation is rammed down your throat. Cheers, --190.244.97.224 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the west vs. in the west

Two of us, non-native speakers, have a small dispute here [4] regarding the expression "towards the village on/in the west". A third opinion by native speakers, with an explanation when to use one or another preposition, would be appreciated. Thanks. No such user (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, you could use "to the west of it". "In" the west just means some general "out yonder", while "on" the west is not really used that way. You could say "on the left" if you're looking at a map with north at the top, but you wouldn't say "on the west", you would say "to" the west. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs' answer is correct. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, it would be correct to use "on" instead of "in" for constructions such as "...towards the village on the west bank of the river", a difference which may not be obvious to non-native speakers.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Logically on is governing bank in that case--on the bank. On the (west) side, on the (west) coast. But to the west. No one would be confused by "It lies on the west." It's just not idiomatic, at least in American. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is another issue in the sentence cited: "The bridge is a border crossing itself, and there is an additional land crossing towards Serbia in close vicinity, towards the village of Neštin in the west." Native speakers would not use the construction "...towards Serbia in close vicinity". British English speakers might write, for instance: "The bridge is a border crossing, and there is an additional land crossing nearby, towards the village of Neštin in the west." The words "towards Serbia" seem redundant, if this refers to a crossing between Serbia and Croatia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


September 11

What does this mean?

Two very nice travelers I talked to on the train, neither of whom spoke English, wrote this in my notebook: [5].

Can anyone translate the phrases into English? I think they're in either Hungarian or Slovak, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance! --Bowlhover (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't translate them, but I'm pretty sure the top one is in Hungarian, the bottom one in a Slavic language such as Slovak. What language did you talk to them in if they didn't speak English? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't talk in the usual sense of the word. They knew a few words of English and French, the only European languages I speak. Besides that, we used a combination of hand gestures, drawings, pointing to maps, and Google Translate (which wasn't as helpful as you'd think). That's why they wrote these messages for me--because they couldn't communicate those ideas in any other way. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarian part translates to "I wish you a nice day / All the best in life" ---Sluzzelin talk 17:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's sweet! --Bowlhover (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Slovak text starts with Prajem Ti pekný výlet pre celom svete which translates to "Have a nice trip around the world". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently Bruce Lee lives. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what's with that? I actually met and took summer classes with a Bruce Lee briefly in the late 80's. (His brother later died under mysterious circumstances.) Immigration agents had told his parents Bruce was a popular name when they immigrated from Mainland China. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not accept invitations to Slovakia, see Hostel (2005 film). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I *think* the Bruce Lee part was because they thought I looked like Bruce Lee. I'm Chinese, but roughly half his age at the time of his death. I'm guessing that because the Hungarian and Slovakian haven't encountered many Chinese people before, I look somewhat like Bruce Lee to them. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


September 12

Improve a sentence

I'm trying to come up with the best way of expressing the situation (or one analogous to it) illustrated below: 

                      Door
                      Open 
------------          |
 Light on   |<---T--->|
            |         |
--------------------------->
0 < T < 5 sec

That is, (a) the light was definitely on 5 seconds before the door opened, (b) the light might still have been on when the door opened, or it might have been off. My best effort is "The light was on until at most five seconds before the door opened." I'm sure that this sentence can be improved - over to you. Tevildo (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the wrong way around? The way I read yours, the light definitely closed five second before the door was open. "The light was on at least until 5 seconds before the door opened" conveys what you described, I think. Effovex (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately "least" and "most" are irresolubly ambiguous when used with negative numbers (which is essentially what you're doing here) with some people focussing on the number, and others on the whole sweep of the quantity. I don't think there is a way to clarify it as it stands; I'd say "The light was still on 5s before and perhaps later". --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


These renditions are somewhat stilted and thus unsuitable for use in a work of fiction, but at least get you a precise recitation of what happened: 1. "The light was on until a point in time no more than five seconds, possibly less, before the door opened." 2. "The light was on until no more than five seconds before the door opened, possibly later." "1" indicates that the light was not on after the door opened, but didn't turn off more than 5s prior; "2" indicates that the light could have gone off at any time after D-minus-5, where D = the time the door opened. Your diagram and your verbal description seem to disagree on whether your time block T can include the moment D. Use "1" if the end of T is defined by D; use "2" if D can be within T. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This risks coming out as "The light was on for about five seconds before the door opened, possibly less, but definitely not more." The point is that "the light was on no more than..." could imply "the light was on for no more than..." My suggestion would be, "The light was still on 5 seconds before the door opened, and may have still been on when it opened." or: "The light could have been turned off in the last 5 seconds before the door opened; at any rate, it was certainly on before that time." IBE (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passivization

I have a sentence in active voice: 

             I try to write a letter.

What would be its passive voice constructions? The ones I could think of are: 

             1. To write a letter is being tried by me.
             2. To write a letter is tried by me.
             3. A letter is being tried to be written by me.
             4. A letter is tried to be written by me.

Are all of these sentences equally acceptable to the native speakers of English? kindly help.

14.139.82.6 (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Sukhada India 12/09/2013[reply]

They're basically all unacceptable. One or more of them might be "grammatical" in some formal sense, but none of them are things that a native speaker would naturally say in any ordinary context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the active voice sentence should read, "I am trying to write a letter." However, your construction would work in the sentence, "I try to write a letter every day." As Trovatore notes, those four passive voice examples would not be used in writing. I could imagine someone saying it out loud if they're trying to finish a sentence instead of verbally "erasing" it and starting over. But they do serve as good illustrations of why passive voice can be so ugly and awkward. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the last point is a little overstated. Passive voice is perfectly fine, used correctly — it lets you put the thing you're most interested in as the subject of the sentence. There are reasons not to use it, but I don't think they're well exemplified by these sentences, just because they are so far from what a native speaker would naturally produce. --Trovatore (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be acceptable - say, in the case of someone learning a language, or a child - to say: "Writing a letter is something I try", or more likely "..something I try to do" or "...something I have tried." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say number 3 is grammatically correct, but I can't imagine anyone ever saying it. I think the best way of turning this sentence passive is to use a gerund as the subject: "writing a letter is being tried by me". --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that No. 3 is OK. The letter is not being tried. The object of "I try" is "to write a letter", and hence the only valid passivisation would be "To write a letter is tried by me", or perhaps "Writing a letter is tried by me" but that is really the passive of "I try writing a letter". If I had to choose one, I'd prefer No. 2, but I hope I never have to choose. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can come up with an (admittedly forced) reading of No. 3 No. 4 whereby it's a grammatical construction. Didn't Caryl Chessman write something along the lines of
? Well, I'm not sure, maybe he used a different verb. But anyway you can do it with that sense of the word try, meaning "subject to trials and travails". The letter really doesn't want to be written by me, but it is, and has to live with that somehow. --Trovatore (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, actually I mean No. 4. --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's filtered back to me that Chessman said "taxed", not "tried". I can't find the exact quote though. --Trovatore (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The verb's got at least three senses, to attempt, to prosecute in court and to weary/burden/test. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.139.82.6 -- In an "I X to Y a Z" construction (where verbs X and Y have the same implicit subject), a change to passive which involves verb X and noun Z being brought together usually doesn't work too well, since noun Z (object of verb Y) is neither a subject nor an object of verb X. This is why possibilities 3 and 4 above don't work. So in a sentence such as "I want to write a letter", the only real passive possible is actually "I want a letter to be written by me" (a little odd-sounding, but not for grammatical reasons). For your sentence, the closest I can come is something like: "One of the things which is being tried by me is to write a letter"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'..one of the things which are being tried' </bugbear> </lostcause> AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bugs has confused the active voice with the present progressive. I try to write a letter is indeed in the active voice.
The passive would have to be I am tried to write a letter, which is invalid because "I am tried" implies in court, and the verb cannot govern "to write a letter" in the passive voice, since the subject "I" has taken its place as implied object. It is possible to say "Writing a letter was tried", although that is not the passive transformation of the original sentence. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those many situations where there is no using the passive voice without sounding like an unforgivable weasel. If I had to produce something for this (if it was imperative that something be produced by me for this), I'd switch the inescapably active verb "try" to a noun and pacify the noun's helping verb: An attempt is being made (by me) to write a letter. Or else I would get rid of "try/attempt/(etc.)" entirely, use the imperfect tense, and simply leave out whether or not I have finished trying to write: A letter was begun by me signifies an attempt but implies that success may not yet be attained, without necessarily implying failure. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with all the answers above, but wouldn't it be simpler just to say that the passive in English almost always comes from the simple active construction, X-Verb-Y, being converted into the standard passive, Y is/was Verbed by X? If there is no direct object (I don't think "to write a letter" is an object, properly speaking), then you don't put it in the passive. It's just a rule. If you like, there are degrees of wrongness, and all your sentences are just wrong in the sense of being totally unnatural. They may be grammatically tenable, but that does not matter, if no one actually says them. "Try" is a catenative verb by the way; I don't know if that makes it active, passive, or something else. IBE (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the OP is trying to do, besides using grammatical conventions to construct a technically correct, yet obscure phrase. Even so, I'll just throw in another example:
The writing of a letter was tried by myself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the passive voice of this sentence? Count Iblis (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo buffalo are buffaloed by Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. John M Baker (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

September 13

Reading of a Japanese Character

I can't seem to find how to read the character with 冨 at left, and 力 at right. Does anyone know? Aslo the one for the 'byou' (as in 病) plus 矢? Thanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character? I only think of two words. You mean 富力/ふりょく/furyoku and 疾病/しっぺい/shippei? Oda Mari (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mari. I wanted to know because I was on Linux at the time, and the input method (ibus) does not have a way of actually drawing the character, unlike in Windows. Do you know of a way to do that in Linux. I want to be able to draw the character I see, and then get a copypastable version (plus readings if possible) of the kanji? As for the characters, I asked a Chinese friend who was online to help, by sending her a screenshot. Got 'em in the end! Thanks for your efforts. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

got?

Non-native speaker here. I am not sure if the use of got is necessary or incorrect or unnecessary in the following examples:

  1. I have got news for you. (as opposed to 'I have news for you'.)
  2. I have got three children. (as opposed to 'I have three children children'.)

Please let me know what category do the above sentences fall under. Thanks!

Such a gentleman 17:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only standard use of "got" is as either the past or past participle of the word "to get". Colloquially, it is sometimes used in place of the helper verb "to have", as in the song title "We Gotta Get out of This Place" where "gotta" is a slur of "got to". That usage is not standard. However, in your examples, "got" would only be used if you meant the past of "to get", as in "I have got three children" yesterday, today I get three children, tomorrow I will get three children. Like that. If you just mean "Three children were born to me" then you would leave out the got. Same with the first "I have got news for you", in standard english, would mean you went out and obtained an object for the person. If you're just telling them something, "I have news for you" is fine. Both sentences are common enough in non-standard or colloquial English, but neither is a "standard" use of got in formal English. --Jayron32 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree partly with Jayron. From a British English perspective, teachers have complained about "have got" for many years, but your two sentences are so normal in colloquial British English that the forms without "got", though perfectly grammatical, sound a little stilted in ordinary conversation. There is a long running British TV quiz show called Have I Got News for You: without "got", it would be equally grammatical, but just sound wrong. (Ignore the inverted verb "Have I" rather than "I have" - that's because it's an exclamation). When I was young, in the 1960's, we didn't say "don't have" or "do you have" in UK English: we said "haven't got" and "have you got".
"I gotta" (or "I've got to") is quite different: the "got" is part of the lexical verb, and may not be omitted.--ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what usage? Gotta is always colloquial, not formal. In formal writing, I can't think of a time when gotta would be allowed, or where "I have got..." would be used where "I have" wouldn't be better, excepting where "got" is explicitly the past tense of "to get" rather than just a superfluous add on. Of course, colloquial English has its own rules and idioms, and gotta is perfectly acceptable in many settings and registers. Just not formal ones. --Jayron32 19:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Colin. We had an English teacher (London in the 1970s) who explained at length that "got" should never be used. In his next lesson, we gleefully counted the number of times that he used "got" and lost count at forty something. Nobody had the courage to present our evidence; he was rather irascible and we still had the cane; discretion proving to be the better part of valour. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my native experience with American English, I think everything that ColinFine says applies to American English too. I've got news for you is overwhelmingly common, while I have news for you sounds a little stiff. (See also Have I Got a Story for You (Batman: Gotham Knight), You've Got Mail, and Have I Got a Deal for You. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but as I said, formal vs. colloquial register needs to be considered. Formal language is almost always stiff sounding when contrasted with colloquial speech. "I've got news for you" is natural and understandable and comfortable for nearly all English speakers, but it is not formal standard English, in the same way that neither the word "ain't" or the "singular they" are. Such usages are perfectly acceptable in casual conversation, but may be frowned upon where formal language is required. Knowing the difference is vital to being a literate and fluent speaker of a language (that is, it is important to know when to use the colloquial register as well as the formal). There's nothing wrong with the colloquial register, in the proper setting, and formal register is inappropriate in some settings. But when answering questions like this, it is still important to note distinctions in usage where they exist. --Jayron32 19:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previous ref-desk thread. Deor (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

evangelism and proselytism

Is evangelism a category under proselytism, or are they synonyms? A simple Google search brings up the result that evangelism is conversion to Christianity while proselytism is conversion to Judaism. That said, a term to describe religious conversion to other faiths would presumably be religious conversion, correct? 164.107.146.188 (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelism is the more specific term used in Christianity; proselytism can be used for any religion, but meaning the same thing. Christian proselytism is called evangelism; but other religions also proselytize. They just don't evangelize. See evangelism and proselytism, the second expressly notes that the term is the more broad of the two. --Jayron32 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the term evangelistic is sometimes used in a secular context, where it means something that spreads zealously. I am just wondering, but using the word evangelistic in a secular context, maybe a person may say, " [type of non-Christian] are opening evangelistic programs to convert people to the [name of non-Christian] faith." 164.107.146.188 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any term can be used metaphorically or analogistically in ways differing from its formal definition. In terms of how the terms are formally defined however, Evangalism is basically Christian Proselytism. --Jayron32 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't buffalo me so much

While we're on the topic of the buffalo sentence (see above), I have this nagging doubt. It's really "The buffalo that buffalo buffalo" (leaving out the adjective Buffalo). It seems to me you can leave out the word "that" or the word "the", but not both. "The" is a necessary way of saying it's a specific subset of buffalo, as I read it. Try "The dogs that cats like hate mice". Surely you can't go "dogs cats like hate mice"? The word "the" is the only way of saying it's a specific subset of dogs, so you have the definite article for a definite group. So I would say it has to be "The dogs cats like hate mice". Am I wrong? IBE (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your sentence "The dogs cats like hate mice" seems to be grammatically correct. However, I find it personally confusing, because I interpret it as meaning that there is some sort of species called "dogs cats" and it hates mice. I actually like the sentence like this: "The dogs, that cats like, hate mice." That way, I can clearly see the verb, predicate, and clause within the sentence to avoid confusion. 164.107.146.188 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a sentence is confusing, it doesn't make it grammatically incorrect (just poor style, perhaps). There's nothing grammatically wrong with "dogs cats like hate mice", with or without the "the" and the "that". Personally, I prefer it with both, for clarity, but that's just my preferred style. Headlinese is an increasingly common style. Dbfirs 18:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I said "grammatically correct" and not "grammatically incorrect". 164.107.146.188 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your conclusion, IBE. The whole thing is (intentionally) difficult to parse, and inserting either of those words makes it easier, but doesn't affect its grammaticality or meaning. "Children Santa Claus visits ... " may be the start of a garden-path sentence, but it's a perfectly well-formed NP. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, but I'll see what others say. So let's make it a full sentence, "Children Santa Claus visits get presents". Somehow this seems to work, but the example I gave, with no identifiers, still sounds dreadfully wrong. It is also difficult to parse, but that isn't my point. I can parse it easily because I wrote it; it just seems to be lacking something. I'm wondering if there is a difference between your (very clever) sentence and mine, although I can't think what. IBE (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with "dogs cats like hate mice", would most readily interpret it as "the dogs that cats like tend to dislike mice". However, another interpretation could be, with missing subject, "dogs cats, like, hates mice". Similar to "she dogs cats, know what I mean, and she hates mice". Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article "the" does make a difference in my mind. "The" makes it definite, whereas the lack of the article makes it more general. "The dogs that cats like hate mice" is about specific dogs, whereas "Dogs cats like hate mice" is more of a generalization. What I mean to say is, the first gives a sense that all dogs that all cats like hate mice and the second say it more as a truism, not referring to specific dogs or cats. Mingmingla (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dulce et decorum...

I want to change that famous Latin phrase Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori from "It is good and fitting to die for one's country" to "It is good and fitting to die for one's [own] dreams." How would I write this?

Regards, --98.228.189.205 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sequere tua somnia, is follow your dreams although just substituting "tua somnia" for "patria" may not be the best grammar. It might be pretty close but let's just say I wouldn't rush to get it tattooed on me before someone else weighs in. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to change "die" to "live," sorry I forgot to mention such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.189.205 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To live for ones dreams? "Dulce et decorum est pro somniis vivere", although "somnium" is literally the dreams you have while asleep. So, maybe "pro spebus"? ("For [one's] hopes") Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'goals' would be a better word than 'hopes,' it implies more direct control over the situation...what word would that be?--98.228.189.205 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the word 'imaginatio,' would that be good?--98.228.189.205 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'finis' has many meanings, one of which is 'limit, boundary, end, goal', so I think that may be your best choice. With that word, the phrase would be "Dulce et decorum est pro fīnibus vivere" (Macron optional).--Mike44456 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


September 14

Years spelt out

Are there ever instances where people spell out years into words instead of numerals? It seems to me like even in the most formal documents, people would write ‘1994,’ not ‘nineteen ninety‐four.’ --66.190.69.246 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly come across spelt-out years in legal writing such as wills and legislation. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also in formal, printed invitations, at least in the old days. And it's kind of interesting that although Spanish, for example, will display a given year as 4 digits, the way it's read is as if it were spelled out - literally translated to English, such as 1975, read as one-thousand nine-hundred seventy-and-five. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same in Russian. For ex, 1956 is spoken as тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят шесть (tysyacha devyatsot pyatdesyat shest), literally "thousand nine-hundred fifty six". They use 10 syllables to our 5 (nine-teen fif-ty six). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welsh still hasn't recovered from the Millennium. Before, we used to give the number of thousands but the other digits were separate, so the year 1987 was "mil naw wyth saith" ("(one) thousand nine eight seven") (though the actual number 1987 is "mil naw chant wyth deg saith" - "thousand nine hundred eight-tens-seven"), since, we say "two thousand and..." so 2013 is "dwy fil a tair a ddeg" ("two thousand and three-and-ten"). No doubt we'll revert to the old system as the century gets older... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
why not dwy fil a thair ar ddeg? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That too. There's nothing like local/personal variation! Some people aren't as hot on mutations as others. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nowhere as bad as French. 1998, for example, is "mille neuf cents quatre-vingt-dix-huit" (thousand nine hundred four-twenty-ten-eight), because the French haven't invented words for seventy, eighty, or ninety. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they do exist — unsurprisingly, they are septante , huitante (or octante), nonante. The fr.wikt entries qualify these variously as Swiss, Belgian, or Cajun. In high school I was taught they were French-Canadian; that doesn't seem to be mentioned in Wiktionary. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be common to spell out at least part of the year number in words in documents such as passports, to make it more difficult to alter the figure.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the year of our lord. Also I thought spelt was a grain but apparently it's a valid past participle of to spell :o Effovex (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along similar lines, what happened when a certain fish was left out in the sun too long: The smelt smelt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A story is told about my uncle, when he was a little boy growing up in Washington. They were down at the docks and he saw one of the fishmongers' displays, and asked what sort of fish that was. "Smelt", says my gramma. He takes a whiff and replies, "I can't tell". --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is definitely so spelt, not 1984. But to my eyes the title stands out by being so. -ColinFine (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also diplomas (in the US sense of a document indicating completion of an educational program). Sometimes, though, they use the equally formal Roman numerals. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so much nowadays, but formerly years were often expressed in words in dialogue (passages of direct discourse in novels and such), since people speak in words rather than in numerals. Deor (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When we went from 1999 to 2000 (nineteen ninety-nine to two thousand), for several years we were saying "two thousand-whatever". Now that the suffix is double digits, we seem to be increasingly reverting to the old habit: "twenty-whatever". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation required

I just found the following sentence in the Quraysh tribe article.

Quraysh is Nadhr ("son of") ibn Kinanah ibn Khuzaimah ibn Madrakah ibn Ilyas ( Elijah) ibn Madher ibn Nazar ibn Ma'ad ibn Adnan ibn Add ibn Send ibn Kedar (Arabic Qaydar)[2] ibn Ishmael[3][3][4] ibn Abraham[5] ibn Azar[6][7] (Terah) ibn Nahoor[8] ibn Srooj[9] ibn Ra'o[10] ibn Phaleg[11] ibn Aber ibn Shaleh[12][13][14] ibn Arpheckshad[15] ibn Sam ibn Noah ibn Lamek[16] ibn Motoshaleh ibn Edres (Enoch) ibn Yared ibn Mehlaiel ibn Qenan ibn Anosh ibn Sheeth ibn Adam

Now it needs some punctuation to break it up but should it be a comma or a semicolon and on which side of the word "ibn" should it go? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Why? (Other than a full stop at the end, of course). --ColinFine (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If one were translating the patronymic, the convention is to put the comma after each name in the list ("... son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam."), but I agree that it's not necessary in the untranslated form. Tevildo (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was also going to change the "ibn" to "son of" as this is the English language Wikipedia.. The sentence is not a quote and "ibn" is not part of their proper names. So it is Ishmael (Isma'il) son of Abraham (Ibrahim) and not Ishmael ibn Abraham or Isma'il ibn Ibrahim. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L and H

Would you please teach me the meaning of "L and H" in the following passage?122.19.123.34 (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)dengen[reply] 

    Kit had promised them all sausages and chips before they went
    into the town on the train to the L and H.  Tonight the notion
    was going to be about Sport, and Jack half threatened to speak.
    ---Maeve Binchy, Circle of Friends, p.439.
The Literary and Historical Society (University College Dublin). Tevildo (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who Do You Trust?

Why is it right? It seems clear to me that it should be "Whom do you trust?" Are there other exceptions like this? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is exactly what you are looking for, but here is a discussion on the Twitter feature "who to follow". BbBrock (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, is that just then a different, informal, register, but perfectly normal? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Few people now use "whom" in everyday speech, and many would never use it under any circumstances. It is a dying grammatical form, as -eth was in the seventeenth century. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "To whom it may concern" (never "To who ...") is still the choice of all who use such an expression - but that's probably vanishing as well. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think most educated speakers still prefer whom over who, even in speech, when it's the object of a preposition. It's only when it's the object of a verb that who has become somewhat normalized. (It may be, however, that who/whom as the object of a preposition is not that common in informal speech.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that educated speakers still tend to use "whom" after a preposition, as in To whom should I address it?; but when the prepositional phrase is split many (but not all) would use "whom": Who should I address it to? / Whom should I address it to? Duoduoduo (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, to whom/who to is my spoken usage. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"!" and "?" style choices???

Hello everyone! This time I'm wondering about the exclamation and question marks, and how they're placed. Recently I was looking at some packaging and noticed that on the English side, the "!" and "?" characters were connected to the words (ie. Example!) but, on the French side they are not (ie. Example !) I notice that there are many users on Wikipedia that write them like that, and also on other sites I visit. So... I am wondering: is it just a style choice, or is there more "history" etc behind writing them like that? Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thanks! --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces before exclamation and question marks are a standard feature of French orthography - see Exclamation mark#French, or (for example) this style guide from TERMIUM Plus, the official Canadian translation bureau. I'm afraid I don't know the origin of this convention. Tevildo (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Standard for European French - as the Termium style guide notes, the only punctuation marks requiring a space in Canadian French are the colon and quotation marks. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little information about the historical reasons for this at History of sentence spacing#French and English spacing and also at ::Plenken. -Karenjc 08:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation by a French typographer (both in French and English) here. AldoSyrt (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I see ! Hmmm... it's contageous, is it not ? Thanks for the information, guys ! :) --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 18:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need a Chinese translation.

This is from my Chinese textbook, and I do not understand.

  • Mr Chan: 人户数, 家感到家?
  • Gareth (American Student): 新科迈罗敞篷版.
  • Mr Chan: 一行改... 一个作曲?
  • Gareth (American Student): 女友盘点佤邦. 佤因地域.

Thank you people. --Suksessingerplaatz (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Chinese book is this? I don't understand either. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

Arabic interjection for "Ouch!"

I was checking the translations of "ouch!" in several languages by google translate (Albanese: uf, Greek: ωχ, Bulgarian: ох, Italian: ahi, Ungarian: joj...). So there is a number of variations, always interjections of one or two syllabs, more or less geographically consistent. But I was surprised by the Arab translation:

أي صوت للتعبير عن الألم

Is that really what one exclaims in Arabic when you step on his feet? --pma 07:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that translation back into Google translate in two parts gives "no voice to express for pain. A user on this site states that أخ or أي are used. BbBrock (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aha, thankyou... when I try to translate it back as it is, I got "ouch" again, but now I see it's kind of bug of the translator. Writing it twice, it says "any sound to express the pain". I guess the moral is: never make automatic use of an automatic device ;) --pma 08:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or a translation office: [6]. --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What language is this?

Trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The language in question is written like this: Hœįkačač, ťâk ťìì łóòłæńeęžeŕ çałlįcįłāāžŕ!. I understand that Hœįkačač is pronounced Hoy-ay-ska-ku-ark-ka, however the rest of the sentence I do no understand. I am guessing this is some sort of slavic language. Any tips? Thank you very much. --Seolfghaty Pissz (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate claims it's Slovak, but the best it could do is translate the "tak" part to "and". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another instance of the recent reference desk troll making up nonsense language questions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go fuck yourself Fut.Perf. . --Seolfghaty Pissz (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it looks like it could be either a North Caucasian language or an Amerind language from western North America, there is absolutely no possibility that the OP's transcription of the first word is at all correct. Trolling is the indubitable conclusion, and the OP's behavior doesn't belie that. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the title of this Chinese drama?

This vid's title doesn't show the correct title of the show and episode; it just shows a Chinese drama show between a young brother and older sister. What is the title of it, and it is articled here?

And please translate what they tell each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EE6:8600:5D2F:EB9C:59E7:77F (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why would the boy (of about 11-13) stay in diapers? Is that explained anywhere in the plot? Thanks in advance --162.238.104.96 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate the plot, but I've no idea what show this is. Not being as strong at Chinese as I should be, I missed a few words that others can hopefully fill in:
Boy: I was just saying random stuff. He/she is a bad guy who (??) children
Girl: You’re getting more and more out of line. You didn’t come back for a whole night. Where did you really go?
Boy: Women shouldn’t interfere in men’s business. I still have a lot of things to do. It’s very hard!
Girl: Stop pretending to be an adult! If you’re really mature, you’d know that not going back will make mom very worried!
Boy: God, sister, you say so much useless stuff! No boy is going to like you!
Girl (looks down, long pause): Here, for you
[boy goes to washroom]
Boy: (something like 还喜欢了 or 好喜欢乐？？)
Girl: Enough
Boy: I haven’t drank any water since last night. It’s not a problem if I drink a little more
Girl: Better not drink too much. From now on you should be more obedient. Don’t go to random places. I heard there’s a lot of bad people here, (name)’s child just fell victim
Boy: God, sister… [video cuts off] --Bowlhover (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Xie, xie / thanks. I guess in case you haven't seen the subsequent vids, here they are:

Apparently the 2nd has no sound, but you'll hear again on 3rd. And I wonder why there's no drama show made like this anywhere else in the world (at least, that speaks English.) --2602:30A:2EE6:8600:5D2F:EB9C:59E7:77F (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Need some help from a wordsmith

I'm trying to preserve the meaning of this sentence: Gender stereotypes influence traditional feminine occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who break gender roles. while removing the word "stereotype" with something more neutral (due to the negative connotations of stereotype). I'm wondering if this, Belief in certain gender roles influence... / Belief in rigid gender roles influence... are acceptable. Any other proposals too? 2.102.187.12 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word that immediately occurred to me is roles. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Norms?Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with those is that a stereotype may or may not be accurate. So gender roles and gender norms are linked but still distinct from gender stereotypes.
So in practice it would be Accurate or inaccurate views on what constitute gender norms influence traditional feminine occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who break gender roles. Perhaps that works? Though I'm sure it can be improved. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Microaggression toward women who break gender roles is more a factor (or more pronounced) in traditional feminine occupations than in occupations without a long history (or in newly emergent occupations). Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, though it seems to be slightly different in meaning. Your proposal has made me see a contradiction in the original sentence. It should mean Accurate or inaccurate views on what constitute gender norms influence traditional feminine occupations, resulting in microaggression toward women who don't practise those views. The bolded part replaced the contradiction, though it definitely needs work! 2.102.187.12 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=573099680"