Language desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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

June 20

Adjective for Family resemblance

I vaguely recall there being an adjective that describes Wittgenstein's concept of Family resemblance so that you could say "adjective category" to mean a group in which the members do not all share a single one feature. Is there such a word or is my memory playing tricks on me? TIA --77.168.186.207 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t too circular for anyone to make a reasonable comment event if there is something that is useful in them? May be narrowing it down little bit? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Heterological~~? No, not after rereading your question--ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility of written languages using Chinese characters

This is just something that I'm curious about. How much can speakers of Chinese understand text in other languages that uses Chinese or Chinese-derived characters extensively? (e.g. Korean hanja, Japanese kanji, Vietnamese Chữ Nôm) 76.204.127.175 (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can guess a little Japanese, but not the others. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 01:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean and Vietnamese no longer use Chinese characters. As for Japanese, like Sonia said, it's possible to get a general idea here and there (for example, if I pick up a Japanese science article I can find the "methods" and "results" sections, etc.) but not to really understand. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I was wondering about texts in those languages written before the widespread adoption of alphabetic writing systems. 76.204.127.175 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there isn't an article in the English Wikipedia but if you know Chinese, Japanese or Korean you can read it up in their respective version of Wikipedia. Before mid-20th century it was largely possible to communicate using Chinese characters, provided you're literate in classical Chinese. Classical Chinese is rather different from even spoken/vernacular Chinese - kind of like the role Latin plays in the 19th century European scholar world. Since the start/mid-20th century though vernacular Chinese took over in China, and Chinese characters occupied a declining role in other East Asian countries and nowadays it's analogous to reading French articles when you only know English - there may be some words that you recognise and you might be able to get the gist of it, but there are lots of faux amis and it's not really intelligible. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Chinese. I used to study some Japanese, but not for a long time. I can get a pretty good idea of Japanese, but I can't get anywhere near an exact translation. If all you can read are the characters, you'll know a number of the words involved, but the relationships between them will be obscure, and some of the meanings will be a little bit off. For Korean, it's similar, though they use far fewer characters than they used to, so the level of understanding is lower. Chu Nom is a different question. When they were still used, there were both Chinese characters and Vietnamese native characters used, so someone who only read Chinese would have trouble reading a lot of it. Again, you might get the gist of it from finding words that you know, but there would be large gaps.

Anecdotally, I know someone who spoke Japanese, but not Chinese, who managed to communicate how he wanted his hair cut in writing to a Chinese hairdresser. The communication was not strong, but the idea got across satisfactorily. Steewi (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read accounts written by 19th century / turn of the century Chinese travellers who said that they communicated with Vietnamese travellers on the same ships via writing, even though they couldn't each other in speech. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Nom is a whole different animal. Most of the characters are not modern Chinese characters and many more are "invented" to suit Vietnamese pronunciation. It's much more different from Hanzi than it is from Kanji. --Kvasir (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting one's language

Say that some person(let's call him John), who is of normal mental ability and average intelligence, acquires a language normally(in childhood) and becomes a fluent speaker. John is then separated from all human contact for a long time. Would John forget his language during this time of isolation? If so, how long would it take for him to lose competence, and could he regain competence if he later regained contact with people? 69.109.58.84 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, althouth it depends on how old he was when he was "separated". This is related to the issue of heritage languages, which a person learns (sometimes to near-fluency) in childhood but then perhaps doesn't use much as an adult (giving it up in favor of a more dominant language). Dr. Maria Polinsky has recently done a lot of research on attrition in speakers of heritage languages and you might be interested in looking into it. (see [1]) rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke one language until I was about five, then emigrated to an English-speaking country, and now, decades later, I can't speak my first language at all. I can sometimes make out the gist of what others are saying, but even that ability has deteriorated with time. I can't see myself miraculously reacquiring my childhood language just by being around others who speak it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note you had another language to fill the gap; this "John" doesn't. Whereas you clearly think in English, ClarityFriend, John isn't going to use another language, but the original. So I expect he'd fare better. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, it does undergo some attrition, but not necessarily permanently. Without use the original language is less frequently accessed in the brain, so the pathways are 'lost', so to speak, though they can be found again when necessary. In the anecdote I'm thinking of, the speaker didn't speak her native language for twenty years, because no one was around who spoke it. When she went back to her home place, she couldn't remember a lot of it at first, but it came back within a couple of weeks as she spoke it again. I suspect it's analogous with muscles. If you don't use them, they atrophy, but you can work them back up again later, for the most part. Steewi (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw Dances with Wolves I thought it very unrealistic that Stands with a Fist should speak English so haltingly. I thought it more likely that, depending on her age when she was separated from other English speakers, she would either not remember it at all, or speak it at the same level she did when she was separated from the others (i.e. if she was five when she was kidnapped, she'd still speak English like a five-year-old). But maybe it wasn't as unrealistic as I thought after all. +An gr 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems to be a different issue from that of heritage language retention. The question is not about someone who grew up speaking a language and then moved to a place where that language isn't spoken, but another one is. The question is about someone of normal intelligence and fluency who is separated from all human contact. In that case I would suppose that "John" would not significantly lose his ability to speak the language. We experience the world in terms of language (in the ways we think and dream, for instance), so I would guess that John would continue to experience those things in his language. Let's imagine he's lost ona desert island. He would call the sea the sea and the beach the beach. He would identify trees as "trees," would probably think of his shelter as "home," would name the various foods he ate, and so on. And if the movies have taught us anything, it's that John would probably talk to himself, and would likely acquire some kind of pet that he would name and talk to as well. It's entirely likely that he'd go a little crazy from the extended isolation, and that might affect his ability to communicate, but if by "lose competence" you mean "lose the ability to communicate in his language," I don't think that would happen.

That all assumes John is an adult. There have been cases of feral children, however, in which children isolated from human contact from a very young age and with little experience of human language are permanently impaired with regard to human speech. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the word "Tambja"

Dear Experts,

What is the meaning of the word "Tambja?"

"Tambja verconis" is a particular nudibranch or sea slug named after Sir Joseph Verco. Tambja also features with several other nudibranchs.

With kind thanks,

Bill

202.161.23.210 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your question, but the genus Tambja was established by R. F. Burn in "Descriptions of Victorian nudibranchiate Mollusca, with a comprehensive review of the Eolidacea", Memoirs of the National Museum, Melbourne 25 (1962), pp. 95–128, so I'd assume that paper is the place to look for an explanation of the name. Deor (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word: Vuvuzela

I believe this word vuvuzela is Afrikaans. Can some please confirm? It is a foreign word that is not common in everyday English, correct? If so, I will apply italics as per Wikipedia's style guide for Vuvuzela. Thanks Davtra (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site claims it is a Zulu word. As for not being common in everyday English, Google gives me 7,300,000 ghits, which seems common to me. However, four weeks ago it was unheard of. Personally I think it's too common, especially in World Cup football stadiums! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though you're not wrong by saying that, just want to point out that the number of Google search results (for what is now a universal term) won't necessarily tell you how common it is in "everyday English"... Google searches websites in all languages.203.208.110.63 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up question, how long does it take and how widespread must the usage be for a foreign word to become part of the language? You wouldn't see vuvuzela italicised in any South African publication, likewise the Afrikaans loan word braai; you might see potjiekos italicised but this is also rarer these days. Might these words be considered part of South African English already? Zunaid 14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, some Afrikaans words are gaining currency in the UK because of coverage of sports events in South Africa such as the Rugby World Cup: I'm thinking of braai or boerewors, really. And now, of course, those blasted vuvuzelas! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Davtra ^(talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South African English

What is South African English? Is it influenced by British English or American English? Is there a guide on how to write in South African English? Thanks, Davtra (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of South Africa, it is reasonable to assume that SA English is influenced more by British English, and also by Afrikaans rather than American English. There would also be influences from one or more of the local indigenous languages too. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That will be the 'standard version', though. Since the World Cup has been on, there have been lots of BBC reporters going round interviewing the local people, and I'm finding a huge range of accents in there, from British-influenced to Afrikaans-influenced to American English (most notably with younger people) to accents probably influenced by local (non-Akrikaans) languages. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could one suppose that the young people speaking English with an American accent does not have English as their first language (South Africa is after all multilingual) and are influenced by the English in movies and TV shows? The Great Cucumber (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I know, the younger people learn English at school (OR), but I can well believe that their English is influenced by the English in American movies and TV shows. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, cunningly entitled "South African English", may also be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore to the article, the South African Accent is typologically similar to the other antipodean English accents - Australian and New Zealand English. Steewi (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steewi, you say "the other antipodean English accents". Not all Southern Hemisphere places are antipodean - at least, not from the British perspective. Australia and NZ are roughly (very roughly) in the ball park. South Africa is way off; its antipodes is in the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The antipodes of the entire Southern Hemisphere is the entire Northern Hemisphere, though, so the name still stands. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow doubt you can use 'antipodes' in that broad way. It would mean that, for example, parts of Indonesia are antipodes of each other, which nobody would accept. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I disagree, because I didn't say 'any point in the Southern Hemisphere has any point in the Northern Hemisphere as its antipodes'. I was talking about the entirety of both hemispheres. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if anyone has specific questions relating to South Africa and/or the World Cup I'll be happy to jump in and try to answer. I've been kept busy across the Language and Entertainment desks these past few days :) Zunaid 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help everyone. ~~Just one more question. What is the preferred date format in South Africa? Is it DD-MM-YYYY?~~ Thanks, Davtra ^(talk) 03:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USA English

An American on a tv programme said he had spent 4 hours on the commode. Is that standard American English? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Commode" is not uncommon in American English; we might say it when we're trying to be a little delicate, since "toilet" has a slight connotation of vulgarity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a euphamistic word that you might find in written English when the writer doesn't want to write "toilet", either to be more technical or as a euphamism. As for speech, as a non-American I only ever hear it said by Americans on TV and the like. When it occurs in everyday language, it would really only be with the speaker's tongue-in-cheek. As a side, you'll find that Americans tends to avoid the word "toilet", for instance, signs will direct you to the "Bathroom" or "Restroom" (other countries simply use the word "Toilet"). 203.208.110.63 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true- in terms of good manners, we Americans would consider saying "I'm going to the toilet" only one step classier than "I'm going to shit." We do avoid the word 'toilet' except when we're talking about the plumbing fixture itself, i.e., "Do you know a good plumber? My toilet is broken." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, toilet itself (in the sense we're using it here) began as a euphemism as well. There's some information about that—and about U.S. and other usage, including the use of commode—at Toilet#Etymology. Deor (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning that the American reluctance to use the word toilet is one of the things that encourages sniggering from Continentals. It reinforces the picture of Yanks as precious, puritanical Bible-thumpers who pretend they're either bathing or resting when they're off to "relieve themselves". I once had an American friend who insisted on calling toilets "facilities". Cute, for a short time, but considering how open the rest of the world is about such things, just one step too far into an American abyss. Maedin\^talk 16:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and in the UK (northern, at least) one would assume that the four hours were spent on a "night commode" - a chamberpot enclosed in a cabinet of sitting height! Dbfirs 16:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To this southern Englishman, a commode is a chamberpot in a chair. If someone told me they had spent 4 hours on the commode, I'd assume that the staff in the old-people's home were being negligent. DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might also recommend a good swig of Californian Syrup of Figs to shift the blockage. DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Yanks are puritanical... you sent us all your Puritans, Britain. You can have them back any time you want them. You definitely made the right choice in shipping them away; they cause all kinds of problems. You can have Amy Winehouse back as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as Deor just indicated, saying "toilet" means pretending you're going in there to get dressed. We very rarely use an accurate term like "shitcan", and even "bog" is impolite. 81.131.16.251 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of my fellow Americans are uncomfortable with the word toilet. We will not say "I'm going to the toilet" or "I was sitting on the toilet". We would say "to the bathroom" or "in the bathroom" (even if the room in question has no bath). As for commode, I strongly disagree that it is "not uncommon" in American English, at least in the Northeast, Northern California, and Chicago—the parts of the United States where I have lived. I have never used that word to mean toilet, and I don't think anyone I've known has ever used it that way. To me, the word commode refers only to some historic toilet-like contraption used in premodern times. (I'm not even quite sure what it is without looking it up, but I'm guessing a seat with a hole and a chamber pot beneath it.) I think I have heard it used for toilet only on television, mainly for comic effect. Marco polo (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My father (aet. 83) uses commode, not exclusively but not for comic effect, either. And I don't think that euphemism in this matter is restricted to Americans. "W.C." might be considered a euphemism, at least in certain contexts; and has "loo" fallen entirely out of use in the UK? Deor (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "loo" is now almost universally acceptable in the UK, and avoids any presumptions of social-status associated with the toilet / lavatory split. A generation ago, it would have been thought slightly vulgar but can now be used in the politest circles. I believe it comes from "lieu d’aisance"[2] ("place of ease") which was the thing to say in the 18th Century. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that it's vulgar or unacceptable; I was saying that it's a euphemism, as much of one as "restroom" is. Deor (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "commode" for "toilet" often, though I'd say it tends to be used by some blue-collar types (as in Detroit, where I grew up). You'll also hear it occasionally in the South (which is where some of those blue-collar folks came from). Sometimes it seems intended as slightly ironic (the speaker's other term of choice might be "crapper"); sometimes as slightly genteel.

Searching for "bathroom commode" will produce lots of references for toilets (as in "how to install a bathroom commode" or shelving units meant to fit over or around a toilet), as well as for chairs and similar items intended as toilets for sick or handicapped individuals. So (straying ever so briefly back to the original question), I'm not sure it's "standard American English," but it's certainly inside a ballpark where "loo" would not be. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a good place to jump in so I started at the bottom. I have zero problem using the word toilet. To me "going to the bathroom" is just what you normally say. From California. And the only time I hear people use the word commode is when they're trying to be funny. My 24.4 cents. --mboverload @ 09:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be pointed out to some of the Americans here, that other English dialects don't just use the word "toilet" more often just 'cause, rather it is used instead of "bathroom". So the word "toilet(s)" often has the exact same meaning that "bathroom" has in US English - the room or area where toilet(s) are. So you will hear things like "I washed my hands in the toilets" or "A lady slipped over in the toilet", to which most people outside of America would't bat an eyelid. But say those phrases in America and you will get strange looks. 203.208.110.63 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it offensive to say "Kill the lights?"

I'm not a native speaker and I was wondering how offensive or otherwise inappropriate it is to say "Kill the lights", given the presence of the word "kill"? Not very when your audience are Millwall fans, but what if they are, say, children, or nuns? Thank you in advance. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all (UK speaker). Kittybrewster ☎ 12:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might avoid it if my audience is made up of the families of victims of murder or natural disaster or the like, but I don't think nuns would be bothered by it, and children would probably find it funny if they noticed it at all. +An gr 14:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my American ears, it is a normal, if slightly more dramatic way of saying "turn out the lights". It is not an offensive expression, though as Angr says, it would be insensitive and in poor taste at an event honoring people who have been killed. Marco polo (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point about this idiom is that it means the same as "Save the lghts", which theater people say (or some of them do). --Anonymous, 03:57 UTC, June 22, 2010.

I would avoid it when in the presence of anyone recently bereaved, but otherwise I don't see any problem with it. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for military sports physical metaphors, the second result is Calling a Time Out on Sports and War Metaphors.—Wavelength (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cool way to say turn off the lights. Usually used during a meeting or a large gathering when there's about to be a presentation. But I've used it just randomly at work and home as well. Nothing bad about it. I think it sounds a lot better than flip the switch or something. Californian--mboverload @ 09:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you turn the lights on again, do you "revive" or "resurrect" or "resuscitate" them?—Wavelength (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best verb to use for "destroyed" in this context - German

Hello. I'm trying to work out how to convey the meaning "No city was left undamaged" in German. The best I've managed to get so far is "Es gab keine Stadt in Deutschalnd, die nicht beschädigt wurden". The trouble I'm having is that I'm not sure which past participle is best to use for 'destroyed'; can anyone offer a better suggestion?

Thank you. --88.111.3.197 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beschädigt is closer to "damaged"; zerstört is closer to "destroyed". Another option is Keine Stadt in Deutschland blieb unversehrt i.e. "remained whole/intact/unscathed". +An gr 14:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the OP's example, it would be "wurde" instead of "wurden" at the end. Rimush (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to wartime activities, then the verb "beschädigt" / "damaged" sounds like a euphemism. "Zerstört" / "destroyed" on the other hand implies a total destruction, which - assuming that WWII is the topic - was the exception. Angr´s suggestion may be the best option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be reluctant to use "unversehrt" referring to a city. The word "unversehrt" sounds a bit like "not wounded". It can be used referring to people, and it can be used referring to some things, for example referring to seals (those things which show that letters have not been opened; I don't mean the animals). It is a bit difficult to explain which use of "unversehrt" sounds perfectly correct and which use does not. But as I am a native speaker of German, it may be interesting that I feel uneasy about the use of "unversehrt" referring to a city. -- Irene1949 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the English word

for the medical condition whereby a person cannot tell whether another person is lifting his toe(s) up or pressing it down? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest 'digital positional proprioceptive deficit'. See proprioception 86.4.183.90 (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insensitivity of the hallux. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle to date

What does "Cycle to date" mean? For ex.: "Cycle to date usage messages" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.167.103.205 (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. It sounds like something machine-translated from Japanese. Paul Davidson (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "to date" is usually used to mean "up to the time of writing". e.g. "While edits to date have largely been constructive, we may see vandalism in the future." (Word usage mavens would probably say that such use is either redundant or excessively verbose.) You might also see signs like "Injuries to date: 123", indicating cumulative tallies. However, unless there is some further context to help, "Cycle to date usage messages" seems like poor wording. The best I can interpret is that it's list of all the usage messages encountered so far for the current "cycle". What this "cycle" is would be context dependent - in science fiction it's often used for a non-Earth day, or it may refer to some other recurring event that doesn't align with a conventional day/week/month/year period (e.g. the four years between World Cups may be considered a "cycle"). -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cycle" could also be a verb in the imperative mood here, telling someone to cycle the messages, i.e. to go through them in their entirety. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm remiss in not mentioning what is probably the most common use of "to date": Year-to-date. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something someone in IT would say when they're waiting for a program to hit a predefined date. Never heard it before, though. --mboverload @ 09:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this from a cell phone carrier or something? It sounds to me like it's the number of messages (i.e. text messages) you've used so far in this billing cycle. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this grammatical error called?

I just saw this in an image's caption on Titanic (1997 film): "As one of the more romantic scenes within the film, Cameron drew the portrait himself." I see this error constantly, but I can never figure out what it's technically called; the second phrase has absolutely nothing to do with the first phrase, and the linking of them makes no logical sense. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling modifier. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(FWIW, it doesn't have "nothing" to do with the second clause; it could be reworded to something like "for what would be the most romantic scene of the film, Cameron drew the portrait himself"; "one of the most romantic scenes within the film, the portrait for which was drawn by Cameron himself"; etc. Various rewordings are available depending on the idea you're trying to get across.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]