Language desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 17

Italics

Am I correct in assuming that the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets are the only writing systems to customarily use italic type? I'm positive it isn't used in the CJK systems, or in the various South and Southeast Asian abugidas, or in the Hebrew and Arabic abjads. Is it used in Armenian, Georgian, or Greek? —An gr 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's indeed often used in today's Chinese publications, obviously influenced by the European practice. I used to rant at those who do that (skewed Chinese characters 漢字!!! Are you kidding me?), but many people have no problem with it, and I'm now more or less accustomed to it.--K.C. Tang 01:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's oblique type, not true italic type, though. I mean true italics. —An gr 01:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Chinese system semantically equivalent to the European system, though? Marnanel 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese "italic" is simply known as "skewed form". The "italic" function in Word just makes the characters oblique, instead of changing them into another font. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, we're already a step ahead of them. :) --TotoBaggins 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly a matter of definition. You say 'Latin and Cyrillic', but there is no mention of Cyrillic in italic type or vice versa. I agree that the Cyrillic 'kursivniy' is like italic type in that many letters are very different from their upright version (rather more so than in italic type in fact), but if you are going to talk about 'true italics' you cannot include Cyrillic - indeed, by definition, 'italic' should only refer to Roman type!

Having said this, it is true that most alphabets have neither case distinctions or distinct forms corresponding to italics. Cursive Georgian has some letters which are unrecognisable against their print variants, and cursive Hebrew is almost completely illegible to somebody who only knows the print form; but I am not aware that either of these cursive forms are ever used in printing. --ColinFine 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the criterium from our article Italic type – cursive typefaces based on a stylized form of calligraphic handwriting – then I would say that the classic forms of the hiragana syllabary qualify. For Greek, the classic fonts as you see here, are also italic type; just like the minuscules of the Latin alphabet, a shape like ξ, for example, developed in handwriting from Ξ from quick writing, in this case by not lifting the pen between the three horizontal strokes. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Latin and Cyrillic are the only writing systems in which a cursive/slanted/handwriting-based variant is used in printing and alongside the regular printed versions, right? I have read that katakana is sometimes used in Japanese for emphasis, much the way italics are used in Latin alphabets. And pace ColinFine, I think the term italics can be sensibly used for Cyrillic kursivniy as well, and some books on typography I've read do so. Maybe I'll add something to italic type about it today. —An gr 09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek typography may mix fonts, using a cursive font next to a modern sans-serif-like font with no contrast between thick and thin lines; for instance, headings may be cursive while the running text is not. However, as far as I have noticed and remember, they are not mixed in running text, with one serving for emphasis. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was getting at. The Elements of Typographic Style says "most Greek faces are like Renaissance italics: upright, formal capitals married to a flowing, often sloping, lower case. No real supporting face has developed in the Greek typographic tradition: no face that augments and contrasts with the primary alphabet as italic does with roman." Cyrillic does have such a face, but otherwise writing systems don't seem to do this, with the possible exception of katakana, which could be considered to "augment and contrast with" hiragana, although the details of when each is used are different from the Latin/Cyrillic traditions. —An gr 10:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is well taken that in Greek italics are not used for emphasis. But there is plenty of typographic precedent (my knowledge is of books in Ancient Greek) for using upright and italic alongside each other—to distinguish lemmata, to distinguish apparatus from text, and the like. Enough so that I find it disappointing that, to the best of my knowledge, there are only two decent freely-available Unicode fonts that provide upright and italic polytonic Greek character sets (Gentium, Old Standard). Wareh 13:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Sentence Structure

I am having a hard time coming up with an alternative or finding a good on-line grammar checker. Any ideas would be much appreciated!

"It was towards the end of summer when I clearly remember watching the television and seeing a tropical depression develop out in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas."

Robvalhed 02:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I noticed is that you're using 2 different time frames. "It was towards the end of summer" is an indefinite time - it could mean almost any day in August (I assume you're in the northern hemisphere); whereas "I clearly remember watching the television ..." obviously occurred at a specific time on a specific day. You could rectify this by starting "It was one day towards the end of summer ...". (This kind of thing reminds me of the possibly apocryphal story of the person who stated on their car insurance claim form "I had been driving without incident for 25 years when, suddenly, the other car came out of nowhere and smashed into me".) JackofOz 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am leery of failing to agree with JackofOz, who writes so elegantly of many things, but I don't find anything wrong with the original sentence. It is not even a case of "watching the television in my pajamas", which would be an odd place to put the set. The expression "watching THE television" is not North American, though. We would drop the article and say "watching television". Bielle 03:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about "clearly remember"? Isn't that totally messed up? I can't figure out whether the person was remembering (back in August) one day when they were watching the TV or the person is now remembering a day, when it was towards the end of summer (in August), and they (then) were watching the TV, etc. A.Z. 03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like "I clearly remember seeing a tropical depression develop out in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas on TV towards the end of summer"? What's the key point of the sentence? That it was summer, that you saw the depression develop on TV, that it developed in the Bahamas, that it was summer? Think about this... it might pay to split the sentence into 2 (could get messy, though) or at least put the most important part first maybe... I dunno, up to you! Aaadddaaammm 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lovely compliment, Bielle. I will name my next daughter after you. :) JackofOz 04:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was last year when I remembered feeding the gulls does, in the most normal interpretation, not mean the same as I remembered feeding the gulls last year. In the first sentence the event that is supposed to have been last year is the speaker's act of remembering. In the second one – at least according to the more common interpretation – it is their feeding the gulls. Actually there are two possible interpretations, whose respective structures can be indicated by bracketing, thus:

I remembered [[feeding the gulls] last year].
[I remembered [feeding the gulls]] last year.

Only in the second case can you rephrase this as last year, [I remembered [feeding the gulls]] by moving last year to the front, which then can be replaced, for emphasis or effect, by it was last year, when. Now the intended meaning of the sentence in the question is presumably similar to the first of these; in the form suggested by Aaadddaaammm:

I clearly remember [[seeing a tropical depression develop out in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas on TV] towards the end of summer].

Here, too, you cannot move towards the end of the summer from inside the bracketing to the front. (I am not saying that in standard English you can never move any sentence part from inside a structure to outside, but just that it is a bad idea to do it here. Otherwise things get confused, or, in A.Z.'s terminology, "messed up"; you can no longer see what modifies what.) Without the remembering aspect, you have

[I saw a tropical depression develop out in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas on TV] towards the end of summer,

and now you can turn this into

It was towards the end of summer, when [I saw a tropical depression develop out in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas on TV].

If now you must say that this whole thing is something you remember now, you can insert it as a parenthesis, for example thus:

It was towards the end of summer, when – I remember it clearly – [I saw a tropical depression develop out in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas on TV].

Stylistically – admittedly a matter of taste – this doesn't get high marks with me. It breaks the suspense and the setting of the time frame introduced by it was towards the end of summer. And it is somewhat superfluous; of course you, the speaker, remember it; otherwise how could you be telling us this. If it is the act of remembering that you want to focus the reader's attention on, à la Proust, then the Aaadddaaammmian version is stylistically better. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have tackled the troublesome opening phrase, and I'm not sure of the surrounding context, so I'll address a couple other concerns. As originally written, it seems that two distinct events are being remembered - a) watching TV, and b) seeing a tropical depression develop. Thus, I'd want to clean up that portion - perhaps "I clearly remember watching the television and seeing reports of a tropical depression developing ..." That's quite wordy though, so I'd trim it some more - "I clearly remember seeing (broadcast/televised/TV reports) of a tropical depression developing ..." Now, about "in the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas" - generally, if one is near the Bahamas, one is in the Atlantic Ocean, so we can strip that out - "I clearly remember seeing TV reports of a tropical depression developing near the Bahamas." You can say "just west of the Bahamas" if necessary. --LarryMac | Talk 13:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence reads perfectly fine to me. "I clearly remember that it was towards the end of summer" ... would have the same meaning. Corvus cornix 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hop Schwiz

Anyone know anything about this Swiss sporting chant? I guess speaking three languages they needed some neutral mix of Suisse, Schweiz and Svizzera so everyone could join in supporting the national side, but that's simply my guess. It doesn't appear to be Romansh, and I can't find anything on where Hopp comes from. The spelling also appears not to have been standardised so I guess it grew up through spoken language. Any more insights would be interesting? Cyta 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Swiss German word for Switzerland is pronounced [ʃviːts], not [ʃvaits] as in Standard German, so it's probably just that rather than being a "neutral mix" of Schweiz, Suisse, and Svizzera. The name of the canton of Schwyz (and its capital Schwyz) is actually identical to the name of the country in Swiss German. —An gr 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't thought that it might be pronounced differently in Swiss German. And I guess it's just a phonetic spelling? Do you know anything about the word Hopp? Cyta 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just an interjection, like hoppla! in Standard German. —An gr 12:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a lot! Cyta 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, in Turkish hop is a noun that (like in English) means "jump". It can be used by itself as an exclamation, and then is an encouragement to jump. It can also be used in a regular way to form a verb; just like the noun an (mind, perception) gives rise to the verb anlamak (to understand) by appending the verbal suffix -la + the infinitive suffix -mak, and zor (constraint) gives zorlamak (to constrain), so hop gives the verb hoplamak (to jump). To form the imperative in Turkish, just remove the infinitive suffix: anla (understand!), zorla (constrain!), hopla (jump!). So in Turkish hopla is not just another lexical item, but a verb form, formed in a regular way. I can't help wondering whether hop(p)la in other languages somehow goes back to Turkish. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot of Turks move to Germany, so if this is a recent thing maybe it's influenced by that. There is a French phrase hoop-là, which apparently translates as oopsy-daisy and gives hoopla (according to [1] anyway). Also apparently hopla is a Greek plural meaning arms (as in weapons). Funny how all these words appear the same isn't it. Cyta 07:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German hoppla also basically means "oopsy-daisy" and has been around longer than the post-World War II immigration of Turks to Germany. Bertolt Brecht uses it in The Threepenny Opera, which premiered in 1928.

The French word is hop (sounds almost like English up), optionally extended with là ('there'). English alley-oop seems to come from French allez, hop. —Tamfang 05:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Schwyzertütsch, "Hopp!" means "go!" as a command of action, or when rooting for your team. There's the slightly old-fashioned and corny "Hopp de Bäse!" ("Go, the broom!") in the sense of "let's get going", "hop to it", once again demonstrating Switzerland's reputation of being a nation of neat freaks. German has several cognate words for the English to hop: "hüpfen" (hopping the way frogs and grasshoppers do it on two legs, and humans on one leg), "hoppeln" (hopping the way rabbits hop), "hopsen", and there is a famous German nursery rhyme titled "Hoppe, hoppe, Reiter" where "hoppe" stands for the bumpy ride on a horse. Another children's rhyme goes "Hopp, hopp, hopp, Pferdchen lauf Galopp", where "hopp" could be translated as giddyup. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Joseph M. Williams ?

Who was Joseph M. Williams ?What has he written in his book Origins of the English Language ?--Bharti4 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on "Origins of the English Language" Joseph Williams will reveal many sources for the answers to these homework questions. -Czmtzc 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP with word "Advise"

Please help me concerning a word I use..."advise". Am I correct or incorrect to state "Please advise -" to a business associate, when asking for their input/response to something? Spelled phonetically the word would be "advize". I am not asking for their "advice", but rather their response. In regard to them asking them a question, I might ask..."Please advise me of the outcome". Is this correct or incorrect?

Dave

Yes, that is correct usage; see definition 2 at Wiktionary. --LarryMac | Talk 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to remember that in British English (not American English) the verb takes an S and the noun takes a C in words such as advise/advice, devise/device, license/licence, and practise/practice.--Shantavira 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This noun-verb change is also true of Canadian English, Shantavira. Bielle 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Americans follow that pattern for advise/advice and devise/device, but spell both verb & noun forms of license with an "s" and practice with a "c". By the way, prophesy/prophecy form a similar pair. --Tugbug 19:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern in these cases is that American usage has different spellings for the noun and verb when the pronunciation is different, and the same spelling when it is the same. --Anon, May 17, 2007, 22:35 (UTC).

Is that always true? I've seen many Wikipedia articles written in American English where "practice" is used as a verb and "practise" as a noun, but they're both pronounced the same. JackofOz 01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not as many as you think? I just did some Google searches in US domains and got these hit counts:

             "the practice"  site:edu  1,010,000
             "the practise"  site:edu        820

             "the practice"  site:gov  1,030,000
             "the practise"  site:gov        202

--Anonymous, May 18, 02:58 (UTC).

Tks Anon. I was referring to Wikipedia articles. JackofOz 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, if you've seen Wikipedia articles where "practise" is used as a noun, it's just a misspelling, and feel free to correct it. American dictionaries agree that both the noun and the verb are spelled "practice". —An gr 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Angr. I'll take you at your word, and if anyone challenges my edits, I'll refer them to you. JackofOz 10:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor amendment: if you've seen Wikipedia articles in American English... I'm sure everyone here understands that some of our articles are in Commonwealth English and should be allowed to remain that way (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English). Wareh 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even minorer amendment: "Practise" as a noun is still a misspelling in Commonwealth English. --Tugbug 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right, Angr's reference to "American dictionaries" blinded me to the fact that Angr said "as a noun." Still, leave the verb practise unmolested in articles in Commonwealth English! Wareh 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music ID

What are [2] and [3]? Black Carrot 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is O Fortuna from the Carmina Burana by Carl Orff.[midi] Number two is claimed to be Destati by Yoko Shimomura, from Kingdom Hearts; see also Kingdom Hearts Original Soundtrack and Kingdom Hearts Original Soundtrack Complete. I'm not familiar with the latter composition. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"at" or "with"

Should I say "angry with you" or "angry at you"? I think "angry at you" makes more sense because my anger is against the other person. If I say "angry with you", it sounds like I and the other person are both angry. Also, "pejorative" is a word having negative connotations. It makes sense because in spanish "peor" means "worse". "mejor" means "better". If that is so, then there has to be word that looks very close "mejor" that is the antonym of "pejorative". 69.216.16.132 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can say either, and "angry with" does not suggest that the other party is also angry. There is a counterpart to pejorative, from Latin pejorare ("to make/become worse"): the adjective meliorative, from late Latin meliorare ("to improve").[4] Of course, Spanish peor and mejor come from the Latin comparatives pejor and melior. Unlike pejorative, the word meliorative is not normally used as a noun. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, being "angry with" someone contains an suggestion of disappointment. If I was a politician, I might be "angry with" a member of my own party who I thought had done something stupid that made our party look bad; but if some unscrupulous member of the other party did something clever that made our party look bad, I could only be "angry at" them, not "with". However, this might just be me; I don't think it's something you could find in a dictionary, so I can't very well check. --Anonymous, May 17, 22:41 (UTC).

I think that Anonymous's examples are right. I would add that "angry with" suggests more of a relationship with the object of the anger. One is more likely to be "angry with" a person one knows and more likely to be "angry at" a stranger, an animal, or even a circumstance. I don't think that one can be "angry with" a circumstance. Marco polo 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common use of the "with" locution is "angry with oneself". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches show that "angry at oneself" (as in "he was angry at himself") is also fairly common. --Lambiam ^Talk 05:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OED gives "at a person when the subjective feeling is denoted, with a person when the anger is manifested; but the tendency is to use with for both". Personally, I find "angry at" sounds unnatural/archaic; possibly it's an americanism? Algebraist 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction seems (at least to me) not obviously present in Shakespeare's use. (You can search here.) The occurrences of "angry with" (I pray you, be not angry with me, madam; Good madam, be not angry with the child) appear (to me) to denote the bad feeling rather than just its expression. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]