Language desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 29 >

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.

February 28[edit]

Are interns underpaid?[edit]

If they do not get any money, are they still underpaid? Or does underpaid imply at least some payment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Underpaid" implies that they are getting some, but not much (less than the going rate, perhaps). If they're not getting paid at all the word is unpaid. --Viennese Waltz 14:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Underpaid" also implies that the individual should be paid more. One could make the argument that an internship should be well-paying, but making money isn't usually the main goal of an internship (getting marketable job experience is). Falconus^{p t c} 18:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Cooperative principle; sections Maxim of Quantity and Flouting the Maxims. jnestorius^(talk) 16:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some interns are paid, but the money is described as a stipend or allowance rather than salary or wages. Whether this makes any legal difference would depend on the jurisdiction. Whether it makes any moral difference I leave up to you to decide. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islands[edit]

Hi everyone. There is a slight language debate over at the Falkland Islands article. The point of discussion centers around the phrase, "Despite its defeat". Another editor wishes to change it to "After the war" because he considers the former term POV. To quote him directly: "The word "despite" indicates a contradiction between two terms, and a military defeat and the pursue of a claim are not mutually contradictory."

Current text: In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands, the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between both countries resulted in the withdrawal of Argentine forces. Despite its defeat, Argentina still pursues its claim; however, UK policy supports the islanders' self-determination to remain British citizens.
Proposed change: In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands, the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between both countries resulted in the withdrawal of Argentine forces. After the war, Argentina still pursues its claim; however, UK policy supports the islanders' self-determination to remain British citizens.

I really don't see anything wrong with the current text, but I don't mind the proposed change either. I other words, my opinion is neutral. Some of the arguments of the current text include that it flows better, and that it is grammatically correct. For a direct quote: "The current version works, there's no need to fix what isn't broken. The prose of the current version flows better than option B." I'd really like to hear some opinions from the language board members (is the current text good or would you suggest a change?). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the poster whose views you quoted. The fact that they lost the war does not mean that sovereignty is a dead issue, which the use of the phrase "despite its defeat" implies. In other words, the outcome of the war does not resolve the issue of sovereignty. Personally I don't see why you need anything there at all, since saying "After the war..." also implies that the war resolved the issue. I would just go with "...the withdrawal of Argentine forces. Argentina still pursues its claim..." --Viennese Waltz 14:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd tweak that last bit further to emphasize the opposing positions whilst giving equal weight to each, so you have Argentina still pursues its claim, while UK policy continues to support the islanders' self-determination to remain British citizens. Incidentally (and off-topic here), that last phrase is not quite correct: omitting the last four words would make it more so. Bazza (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Obviously the British policy of self-determination means that the islanders are free to choose which country they are aligned to. --Viennese Waltz 16:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it makes sense to drop "Despite its defeat", since it isn't right to suggest that the military conflict should have settled Argentina's claim. I also agree with Bazza's suggested clarification. I think that it would be awkward to insert "After the war" where it has been suggested. Inserting this phrase would continue the historical narrative from the previous sentence and would really require verbs in the second sentence to remain in the past tense ("...Argentina still pursued its claim"), whereas you want to move to the present situation in that sentence. To avoid this awkwardness, it would be best to omit any adverbial phrase from the beginning of the sentence, as Viennese Waltz suggests. Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, why do you think the phrase "despite its defeat" makes that implication. I've never seen that and its been in the article for years with the agreement of both Argentine and British editors who've never raised it as an issue. I just wonder whether having the suggestion planted has made a difference. No matter, we'll take those suggestions on board. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the topic, after 20 years forgotten, got a revival since a couple of weeks, and not only here in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It got a lot of attention in The Iron Lady, which has been widely viewed by people interested in recent British history (and fans of Meryl Streep). Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2 is the 30th anniversary of Argentina's invasion, the Argentine Government has been ratcheting up tension in the lead up to the anniversary. The Argentine economy is in trouble and there's nothing like a spot of sabre rattling to excite the people and distract from domestic problems. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Argentina has been claiming the islands on a regular basis ever since the war. Two of my cousins were stationed there in the 80s and 90s (and another was in the war itself). It has only hit the press recently because of the run up to the anniversary. The fact is, it is not considered newsworthy in the UK, because the idea is, we own the place, and nothing will stop that. This is a dire mistake, however, because if Argentina does mount an attack (with special forces, cutting off communication and destroying airstrips and AA gun emplacements) the British are not in a position to take the islands back, having only two aircraft carriers and no planes that can use them, besides a small group of Eurofighters. We'd have to hit Argentina directly, with long range bombers (fielded from Ascension), and this would cause a huge amount of damage to civilians. UK stocks would drop as a result of the global outcry, and it would cause damage to us. The islands are considered impregnable now, compared to 30 years ago, but if they do fall, we have no way of getting them back. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the implication carried by the word "despite" that makes the implication. It's basically saying, Argentina lost the war but is still pursuing its claim to sovereignty. That is a classic non sequitur, since the fact that it lost the war says nothing about the legitimacy of its claim to sovereignty one way or the other. --Viennese Waltz 20:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have always read it differently and don't see it is a non-sequitur at all. The way I have always read it, was that although Argentina lost the war it was not deterred from continuing to pursue its sovereignty claim. And I believe that was the reason for the original choice of words. Its also relevant to note that a neutral editor was responsible for drafting that section of the article. It was never a comment about the legitimacy of any claim. Hence, my comment - the phrase has been there for years without engendering this comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the sentence is exactly the same as that of WCM. However, the different understandings coming from different users indicate to me that perhaps the current wording is not necessarily the easiest to understand.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, MarshalN20, this is now the second time you've come to this reference desk to solve some dispute. This desk is not for solving disputes, and any advice you get here regarding linguistic issues is unlikely to be definitive in solving the dispute. There are a thousand reasons why one could object to or support either version of the sentences above, which have nothing to do with language at all. Please try WP:DRN if there is a dispute that isn't being worked out on the talk page satisfactorily. --Jayron32 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a language question, adequately answered by contributors. The advise given here is just that, and I am sure everyone is aware of that. I don't need your paternalism, and I don't appreciate the tone of your message. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using the reference desk to settle article content disputes is an abuse of the reference desk. Please stop doing this. Reference desk editors have no authority to decide content issues, and they offer their opinions without assumming such authority. There are legitimate fora for content related questions, like WP:RSN, WP:POVN, WP:BLPN, WP:NORN, WP:FTN and WP:DRN. Keep content questions confined to those fora, and do not try to get reference desk editors involved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to sustain your claim that my question is being used "to settle article content disputes"? If not, then please stop with the abusive accusations.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, you've posed a question regarding the change of wording in an article which removes the word "defeat". Regardless of which version is "better", changing a phrase from "despite its defeat" to "after the war" represents a substantive, and not merely linguistic, change to the meaning of the article, and is, on the face, likely to be a controversial change. It is disingenuous to claim that the question over the change is purely linguistic. If you cannot see how removing the word "defeat" from the sentence is likely to be controversial, then you're being deliberately obtuse. Either way, this is not a language issue. It is a substance issue: If no one is disputing the change, then make it. If someone is disputing the change, use the article talk page or WP:DR methods to solve it. The reference desks are not part of the dispute resolution process. I care not which version of the sentence is used, but to claim that this is not a content issue is just ludicrous. --Jayron32 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Marshall. I do have proof. You made your intentions known on the article talk page. Don't ever pull a stunt like this again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you are involved in the article's discussion to even comment on it. No one is disputing the content (Everyone accepts that Argentina was defeated, and everyone accepts that Argentina still has a claim over the islands), but rather are unsure of how to best present the matter. "Despite its defeat" was explained to be contradictory, so I came here to the board asking if anybody else saw it that way as well or if they had a different view. It all concerned the language, and the responses all clearly were aimed at the language.

Again, no one is using this as part of the DR process. Repeating it won't make it true; at least not in the first few tries.

Dominus, your statement really made me laugh. Glad to see comedy isn't dead. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could never be described as Marshall's biggest fan and I can't quite believe I'm defending him. However, whilst I can see where the comments from Jayron and Dominus are coming from, I believe this was a genuine posting from Marshall to ask a language question. Marshall's first language is not English and like me he read that sentence in the manner I suggest above. I think he was genuinely asking whether it could be read a different way. I don't see this being raised as a content matter, since he is not pushing for the change and accepts the status quo. Whilst it it remains my firm belief he used this board disruptively on his last visit, I would suggest on this occasion he be given the benefit of the doubt. Equally I suggest to Marshall that misunderstandings are less likely to arise if he adopts a less confrontational style. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (and this probably belongs on the refdesk talk page, or somewhere yet else) I too didn't see MarshalN20's question as "abusing" the desk. His actions were communicated transparently both here and at the article's talk page. Nowhere did he say that this thread would have the function of a definite authorative reply, or that the language desk was to act as arbitrator in a situation of conflict. Asking for replies here, to add insight into a problem of how to phrase a sentence and suggestions how to resolve it, doesn't constitute abuse, unless the results themselves are abused (e.g. in a fallacious argument from authority; an authority the language desk neither has nor claims to have). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WCM and Sluzzelin. It would be nice if, instead of accusing me of things, I was first asked what the intentions of my question were (considering they were unsure). The language board is the only place this kind of question can be asked without matters getting blown out of proportion. Certainly, since I am not arguing for either the change or status quo (both seem fine to me), then I am also not the person that should take matters into the WP:NPOVN. My role was solely that of helping clear up what is (from my perspective) a pure language question, and I still don't see why Jayron and Dominus rolled their train over me (Ah. I just noticed Dominus is from the potato discussion. I knew the name sounded familiar. Hahaha. Sorry for forgetting about you.). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Met with" or "was met with" a reaction?[edit]

This edit to Siri (software) changed "Siri was met with a very positive reaction" to "Siri met with a positive reaction". Now according to what I think, the previous version was correct. But then I'm not a native speaker of English. But according how I view it, Siri is not a person and as such cannot initiate actions. So it's people who actually act, and meet Siri with a reaction. Siri doesn't itself go out and meet people. Can native English speakers explain if the edit is correct or not? JIP | Talk 19:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native speaker, and I think that, while the original version was not incorrect, the edited version is preferable. The active voice is clearer than the passive voice. Writers should try to avoid passive constructions. The English verb meet with in the sense of "encounter" (as opposed to "hold a meeting with") does not imply animacy and can be used with an inanimate subject. Marco polo (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the passive is to be avoided (sorry), but it often manages to creep in ("... can be used ..."). It does have a place, otherwise there'd be no purpose in it existing at all, but it can easily be overdone (there I go again). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "was met with" puts the emphasis on the action of the others, where it belongs, in this case. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "met with" to "was met with". I think this a phrasal verb "meet with", with a specialised sense "encounter a reaction". --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor's going to use passive voice, it has to be "was met with". Otherwise it sounds like Siri went to a conference room with someone name "Positive Reaction". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "met with", FWIW. Not particularly because of any general "passive should be avoided" arguments, but just because, to me, it feels the natural form of words in this case. 86.160.212.223 (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with the solution to this particular question, but for the simple reason that "met with" is more idiomatic than "was met with". I disagree with the blanket avoidance of the passive voice; in fact, the passive voice is preferable in certain contexts, e.g. if you want to emphasize the recipient of the action, or if the actor is unknown or unimportant. Language Log has had several posts on this subject (here's a summary, though this also deals with the misidentification of the passive, and I not accusing anyone here of that). Lesgles (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a native (Br)English speaker and former textbooks editor (not that I'm trying to pull rank) "was met with" sounds to me horribly unidiomatic if not outright grammatically wrong: "was met by" would be far more natural. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.36 (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]