Language desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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.

March 11

Arabic help: File:Medersa Odienne.JPG

What is the Arabic seen in File:Medersa Odienne.JPG? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "مركز تربية الإسلامية أوجيني" or "Markaz Tarbiyyah al-Islamiyyah Odienné" (Oudienné Islamic Education Centre, as it also says in French). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns with short memories

There's a sentence style that befuddles the bejesus out of me. I see it all over the place, and I wonder if anyone can comment meaningfully on it.

It's characterised by the use of a pronoun in place of a person's name, followed a little later in the sentence by the person's name instead of the pronoun used earlier. It has the capacity to confuse, the only saving grace being that sentences are meant to be read in their contexts, not in isolation. But even so, it always strikes me as a very mannered and very unnatural way of expressing oneself.

Here's an example from Louis Moreau Gottschalk I corrected yesterday, from:

He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, but Gottschalk always introduced himself as a New Orleans native, to

He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, but he always introduced himself as a New Orleans native.

The earlier version reads as if readers are assumed to have such short memories that they would forget that the "he" at the start refers to Gottschalk, so his name has to be reintroduced in the next available phrase. Are readers really that inadequate? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with:

He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, but always introduced himself as a New Orleans native.

You tell me what's wrong with it. I'll answer that for you: There's nothing wrong with it. It's even better than the edit I made. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's the editors that are inadequate rather than the readers. Nice rant as a question though. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for meaningful comment. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an attempt to vary the writing style, but yes, it often jars and should be avoided. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comma is what's wrong with the suggested sentence, at least according to most style rules. Commas should be used only when needed to separate full clauses (with distinct subjects and verbs) or otherwise to eliminate ambiguity. The element after the comma is not a full clause; it's just a verb phrase. According to most style rules, the comma should be removed. Marco polo (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take that point, but the issue I raised would still be there. It's about a pronoun being asked to represent a noun, which is exactly what it's designed to do, but only a few words later being relieved of its burden. If the writer wanted to use a pronoun in only one of the two places, the second place would be the one to choose, not the first place: Gottschalk returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts but he always introduced himself as a New Orleans native. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's about intended stress. As I read it, the first example places the emphasis on "Gottschalk always introduced himself as a New Orleans native", whereas in the other two the emphasis is on "He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts". In other words, though using a non-subordinating conjunction, the intent is to to be read similar to "Though he returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, Gottschalk always introduced himself as a New Orleans native." -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see equal stress on both parts of the sentence in the second example, but otherwise I totally agree with your explanation. Hans Adler 22:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg

Spielberg, being Spielberg, can dress as he pleases. But that's the point: Americans used to want to dress up. Wearing a suit was a privilege of adulthood; Spielberg's outfit looks like something his mother might have dresses him in fourth grade.

It's from the article, "Dress Down" Days. Who's the Spielberg mentioned in the article? and why Spielberg? I don't understand. Can somebody explain what this paragraph means. Thank you in addance.203.240.243.2 (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it's Steven Spielberg, who is the boss, so is able to set the dress code, or lack thereof, himself. And "dress down days" are days an employer or other organization designates for wearing more causal clothing than usual. StuRat (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some clothing items cause more trouble than others. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it referred to as American "informal formality" (or maybe vice versa). For example, the CEO encouraging you to calling him by his first name, rather than "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Dr." or whatever. And dressing in what is called "business casual", as opposed to jeans and T-shirt which are for "dress-down Friday" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly worked for a US owned insurance broking firm in London. In the London insurance market, a dark business suit is the required uniform, however, this company decided to have a "dress-down Friday" which meant that we all had to go out and buy "smart casual" clothes, as we weren't allowed to wear our suits and ties, or jeans and t-shirts which were not acceptable either. The whole thing was a pain in the bum, and the American managers were rather surprised that we weren't overjoyed. Bit of a culture clash really. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of a workplace where one was forced to dress down but was forbidden to wear jeans. The forcing part seems rather odd. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "expected" might be a better term. Everybody complied. I've certainly worked in offices where people who dressed in ways other than that required by the management were told to go home and change. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An office that demands compliance to business-casual as opposed to a suit is being a bit nannyistic and blinders-on. Dressing appropriately is what's important. If you're holed up in a cubicle all day, who cares? But you might need to wear a suit because you want to make a good impression on a client, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British offices are generally "open plan" - we don't have those little cubicles that you see in the US, so anyone visiting can see how the staff are dressed. Corporate image and all that. Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We see this on TV as well. For six days of the week, male newsreaders wear a suit and tie, but on some channels, on Sundays they wear the suit coat and an open-necked business shirt without the tie. That's more "half-dressed" than "dressing down", but it's part of the overall picture. And it's a complete reversal of the tradition where one would wear one's "Sunday best" on Sundays only. Is there a "Sunday worst"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans used to dress a lot more formally when out in public. Here's a random example,[1] from the 1912 World Series, in which most of the spectators are dressed up, including suit, tie, and bowler hat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Us too. When I first started going places by plane (late '60s), it was the norm for men to wear at least a shirt and tie, if not the whole suit. (Now, that's true only for business travellers.) Same for going to concerts. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked for a little software company in Cambridge in 80's, I was posted for three months to the parent compnay in the US. I understood that they were more formal and I needed a suit. When they told me about dress-down Friday I honestly thought they were winding me up, as the concept was so self-evidently bonkers. I haven't changed my view since:. Either the company is more concerned about your appearance than your comfort or they're not; what's Friday got to do with it? --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to hate dress-down Fridays. Not because of the clothing factor, but because psychologically it put most people into weekend mode, and they'd be talking loudly as if there was an all-day party going on, and it was very disruptive, and my productivity suffered. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to find the "subject "in these sentences

Which word in these sentences is the subject?

"Theirs was the most popular song" "Most countries are bilingual" "They met in San Francisco"

Thanks in advance -58.179.166.84 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively theirs, most countries, and they. Victor Yus (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject can be a phrase, not just a single word. In all these sentences it's what comes before the verb (though some would consider "the most popular song" to be a "subject predicate"). AnonMoos (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do children of lesbian couples receive patronymic names?

Do children of lesbian couples receive patronymic names? Is it the male whose sperm was used? The grandfather? 70.162.199.202 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? In North Korea? Iraq? Venezuela? Luxembourg? Mongolia? Hans Adler 14:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't they bear the names of their parents? Or are you referring to Scandinavian countries where patronymics are more common than surnames (like Iceland)? (In which case the answer is – I have no clue and am interested to find out too! Presumably there is no reason why a matronymic like Björksson can't be used, but that would only be the name of one of the parents. I wonder if double-barrelled patronymics or matronymics exist?) — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Iceland, although patronymics are most common, there is no 'rule' that says they must be used. Some Icelanders have inherited surnames (like Geir Haarde), whilst others use a matronymic (like Heiðar Helguson, son of Helga Matthíasdóttir). I believe the parents are free to choose what suits their child best - presumably a female couple could choose for their child either to inherit one of their names ~~(especially if they changed their surname upon marriage)~~, or for the child to take one of their first names as a matronymic. See WSJ: The peculiarities of Icelandic naming. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article. Thanks for that. I see that it is possible to take both a patronymic and a matronymic (e.g., "Dagur Bergþóruson Eggertsson"), so that would presumably be a possible answer to the original poster's query. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Especially if they changed their surname upon marriage"? But Icelanders who use patronyms or matronyms don't change their surnames upon marriage since they don't have surnames. You don't stop being your parents' child when you get married. But what about Russian patronymic "middle names"? Are matronyms ever used for those? It isn't just an issue for the children of lesbians either, but also for illegitimate children whose father is unknown. Our article Eastern Slavic naming customs says patronyms are obligatory but doesn't say what happens when the father's name is unknown. Angr (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I ballsed up a bit there by not thoroughly reading the article I posted. You are correct - Icelanders do not change their names upon marriage. Therefore I withdraw that part of my answer. I still believe, though, that the child of a female couple could (and probably would) take one of the mothers' first names as a matronymic. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, see this discussion, which gives examples of Russian matronymics such as Natalievich and Katerinovich. These are not unknown, but are used only in very unusual circumstances. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably more common nowadays for the mother to simply choose a patronymic in the cases where the father is unknown.[2] Lesgles (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My betting is that most cultures have not developed a consistent set of customs to deal with this new phenomenon. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JackofOz, apologies for not specifying the country (Slavic countries, didn't know any other countries with patronymics besides Scandinavia). Thank you all. 70.162.199.202 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side divertimento of no merit

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

Whatever the country, Lesbian couples don't have children. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm — I have a vague little recollection somewhere of seeing a news item on progress towards combining two female gametes. I don't think it's simple, and I don't think the mechanical problem of not having a spermatazoon to deliver the chromosomes is by any means the only difficulty. But it might be possible someday. --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike these genetic experiments, adoption is perfectly feasible even now.—Emil J. 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian couples most certainly DO have children. Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache, for starters. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain Medeis knows that, so I was interpreting her remarks in the most literal/genetic way possible, on the principle that utterances should be interpreted in a way consonant with all facts known and agreed to by all participants. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's supposed to be some sort of humour, it seems very pointless if people generally don't get it. Simply saying the opposite of what is known to be the truth - where's the humour in that? I note the use of capital-L Lesbians, but Lesbians are still lesbians (well, the lesbian Lesbians are). Like the "contributions" in foreign languages she knows almost nobody here would understand, it's attention-seeking behaviour. The characteristic asterisks are another mark of that. They stand out from the common-or-garden colons that most editors are content to use, and say "look at me". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no humor. (But apparently there is some self-righteous carping.) In certain cases one lesbian can have a child with a man, who is that child's father regardless of legal fictions, and her partner can adopt the child or stand in some novel legal relation to that child in a small number of jurisdictions, the child's right to contact with and support from its father perhaps being deemed of no interest to the state. But they can't have a child together, although the future scientific developments are interesting. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was "... Lesbian couples don't have children". That is flat out wrong. But what this has to do with the topic of giving patronymics to children escapes me. Unless you're suggesting that lesbian couples who have children using IVF technology or whatever are somehow disbarred from naming the very children they produce. Any good reason I shouldn't hat this sub-thread as off-topic? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in poking Medeis with a stick, Jack, and I wish you'd refrain; but yes, this is way off topic, not least since by implication it gratuitously delegitimizes one type of family childrearing for no reason I can fathom. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, I can never tell when she's having some weird joke, or being deadly serious, or being deliberately misleading (not bad for one who with gay abandon hats others for their disruptive behaviour).

Let the hatting commence. Extra omnes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"His or her" → "their" ?

Resolved

– ~OP:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make the lead [UK: lede] as concise as possible, and wish to express his or her as their, in the following [pending] from Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?:

Each chef is killed in a manner reflecting their most famous dish...

Although there are multiple chefs of varying gender, I realize that their corresponds to each, and therefore might not be grammatically correct - or is it? — Preceding modified yet uncertain comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article on this phenomenon is singular they. Briefly, some people consider it correct, and some don't. I think it's fine for a Wikipedia article, but I'm quite sure there will be those who disagree. Victor Yus (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, that's fine... ish. There is no specific English pronoun for a single person of unspecified gender, so we use 'they' (or in this case, 'their'). See Singular they. This usage has been around for probably over 500 years, and certainly since the time of Shakespeare, who wrote "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me, As if I were their well-acquainted friend". Nonetheless, some people get very worked up about it, and decry the falling standards of literacy among young people today. See here, for instance.

My advice? Decide which style you like and use it proudly and with confidence. Tell anybody who questions you that they're wrong. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, "Tell anybody who questions you he's wrong" -- not some other folks. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's good enough for Shake-speare, it's good enough for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

–He's or she's.... ;) — Preceding snarky comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's annoying to say and write all the time, hence the growing preference for forms of "they". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't a growing preference. It has been common for 500 years. The singular they been annoying officious pedants who have nothing better to do than invent their own rules and berate the majority of speakers for not following them. Pay no mind to people who tell you it is wrong. They're just not having enough sex, and need something to do with their pent-up aggression because of it. --Jayron32 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What's growing is the rejection of the pedantic and clumsy "he or she" construct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP, the spelling "lede" is not a UK thing. See Lead paragraph: In the journalism industry, particularly in the United States (see News style), the term is sometimes spelled "lede", also pronounced to rhyme with "need". The alternate spelling was invented to differentiate it from references to the metal lead, which was used to cast type. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we got enough o' them lead paragraphs as what we don't needs no more. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've seen quite a few toxic ledes in my time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do THEY always have to muck with stuff? What about the [lead/lede] car in a race? Does a general [lead/lede] his army? — Preceding halfwit comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lede" refers strictly to the journalism term.[3] In your examples, it's spelled "lead" and pronounced "leed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One must avoid any possible confusion, mustn't one? Who knows? — That lede car might be made of that heavy toxic metal. — Preceding trollish comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when using a general reference, it is usually possible to redo it into the plural, as in The chefs are each killed in a manner reflecting their most famous dishes... and eliminate the troubleseom he/they/he or she. Gzuckier (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except, when you use "each", you're supposed to treat it as a singular, hence back to square 1 (... reflecting his/her most famous dish). Using "all" instead of "each" would obviate this issue. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "each" gives the sentence more clarity (each chef was killed in a manner reflecting that chef's most famous dish; this meaning wouldn't be conveyed so clearly with "all"). Victor Yus (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you stress the specificity of "that chef's most famous dish" (meaning each dish belongs to one and only one chef) but still allow Gzuckier's "their most famous dishes". These seem to clash badly. The "each" in Gzuckier's version adds no real value. Take it out and it still reads well (or maybe it could be tweaked to "The chefs are killed in manners reflecting their most famous dishes...."). Nobody would read it as a bunch of chefs were gathered together in a room and blown up by a single bomb. They'd read it as each one getting an ending reflecting his or her most famous dish, and you'd get that meaning across (a) without having to resort to the "his or her" phrasing, which some find clumsy; and (b) without resorting to the singular they, which some find objectionable. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To put a fork in it, I believe the best compromise (there is no perfect solution) is: The chefs are each killed in a manner reflecting their most famous ~~dish~~ [dishes]...; this is unambiguous in meaning, has uncontroversial grammar, is not too awkward, but is less concise than it could be. ~Eric F 02:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [modified: 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)][reply]

But now you aren't making clear that it's one dish per chef. People might be expected to work that out, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice accuracy just for the sake of avoiding a construction which some (and without particularly good reason) might object to. (In fact I think the original proposal was perfectly fine, and the suggestions that have come about through everyone piling on have only made it worse. Now, what metaphor could we use to describe that situation, I wonder ...) Victor Yus (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saswitha

The Dutch Wikipedia has an article, nl:Saswitha, that is a biography of an adventurous man, named Saswitha, with strong esoterical inclinations who seems to have founded the first training centre for yoga teachers in the Netherlands after World War II. The article is mainly based on a (unreliable) source, written by the heirs of Saswitha. Both source and article claim that the name Saswitha is given to the man by religious teachers in India and that Saswitha would be an "Old Celtic" word for living water. If someone who is an expert or at least knowledgeable in the field of historical linguistics of the Celtic languages could confirm or deny that the last statement is true, he or she would make me happy. Thanks in advance, Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Celtic languages well, but I do know linguists don't talk about "Old Celtic" - the term is Proto-Celtic, which evolved into Old Irish, etc. (P.S. It seems odd that teachers in India would use a Celtic rather than a Sanskrit word. Plus "living water" is a Christian term.) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, the term 'living water' (מַיִם חַיִּים) was used in Hebrew long before Christianity (e.g. Genesis 26:19), in the sense of water that moves (as opposed to still water). - Lindert (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having looked up Proto-Celtic words for "living" (adj.) and "water" [4] the claimed derivation seems even less likely. The word for "living" is reconstructed biwo. Water roots include (anglicizing the IPA) akwaa, boglo, dubro, iskaa, lawo, udeskio, utso, feno and fono. (You can see similar words in known Celtic languages: "living": Old Irish (béo [5]), Welsh (byw / bywiol [6][7]), Cornish (byw / kesvyw [8]), Scottish Gaelic (beò [9]). And "water": Old Irish (uisce / dobur [10]), Welsh (dwfr [11]), Cornish (dowra http://www.howlsedhes.co.uk/cgi-bin/diskwe.pl]), Scottish Gaelic (uisge / deuraich [12]).) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

usquebae means water of life - except that it means whiskey. Hoax, maybe? Rmhermen (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"-Witha" actually sounds like the ending of some old Germanic female names such as Hroswitha, Ealswitha (also Iroquois Gendenwitha, Tekakwitha)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers. They are still tentative, but no confirmation means that a better source is required. I do not think it is a hoax. My conjecture is that it is contempt for the facts, motivated by a strong belief that some profound obscurity or some meaningless profundity is preferable to a dry narrative. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Hi, I am an spiring article writer and I would like someone to check the grammar of my first one. It's very important for me! Thanks in advance.

Film: entertainment or social mirror?

What is cinema? Is it only a fancy way to distract yourself for a couple of hours, or maybe there is something more behind this enjoyable pass time?

It's been more than 100 years since Auguste and Louis Lumière showed their first film. Although the Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat impressed the public, things have changed dramatically from that time. In the Era of the Digital Technology simple motion picture seems to be rather habitual than breath-snatching. However, the strange thing is that the film industry is growing faster and involves a larger audience and from year to year. Taking into account its penetration into our lives, it becomes evident that film is a very powerful and influential tool which can in some way have an impact on our vision of the world. It may sound terrifying, but in fact it is not.

Most films highlight the current social issues and struggle to resolve them. They are like a mirror of our society, our believes and our values. We create films. We are those people who create every single scene on the big screen, even though we rarely realize it. Film directors take inspiration from our lives and transform it into exciting stories. Using familiar situations they try to draw one's attention to the existing problems and to find the way out of them. Hundreds of times after watching a movie I was founding myself rethinking those things which I used to neglect. I was thinking about the message which creators of the film wanted us to catch, the reflection of the real world in the artistic one.

If you ask me how I would describe cinema in one sentence I would say that it is an attractive phenomenon which softly changes one’s consciousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.0.93.182 (talk • contribs)

Your grammar is pretty good but this text would never be accepted as an article on Wikipedia. The entire thing is an expression of (your?) personal opinion about film, it's about as far removed from encyclopedic text as it is possible to get short of original poetry. Roger (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable for the OP's personal blog, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was referring to a personal blog or something of the like, not a WP article. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar is actually not good at all, there are around a dozen errors. Also the writing would be greatly improved by proper paragraph structure -- each paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that expresses the theme of the paragraph, and the rest of the paragraph should be devoted to enlarging the topic sentence. (Not every paragraph needs to be structured that way, but exceptions should be rare, especially for beginning writers.) Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Looie that it needs a fair bit of work if you want it to sound polished, but I like your last sentence. There are too many changes you need to make for anyone to list them, but from the first few sentences, try:

"Is it only a fancy way to distract yourself for a couple of hours, or is there something more behind this enjoyable pastime?

It's been more than 100 years since Auguste and Louis Lumière showed their first film. Although The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (the italics are meant literally here) impressed the public, things have changed dramatically since that time. In the digital age, the motion picture seems to be habitual rather than breathtaking."

Just some suggestions, but basically it's fine for a blog. You learn by practicing and getting feedback, so keep at it. Just remember there are few real jobs for writers, so, ideally, you should pin any financial hopes on something else. IBE (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ви знаєте, що spiring не означає "починаючий"?
- Medeis' above comment apparently means, "Do you know, that spiring does not mean 'beginner'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be what it apparently means. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe you could rephrase it in, say, Greek? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reword

Although Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat [use italics, or else quotation marks] impressed the public, things have changed dramatically since that time. In the Era of Digital Technology a simple motion picture seems to be routine rather than breath-snatching. However, the strange thing is that the film industry is growing faster and involves a larger audience from year to year.

also, it's beliefs not believes, and found myself not was founding myself. I enjoyed it though, stick with it. reminds me somewhat of somebody or other's observation about books, that the plot is just something to keep your mind distracted while the book has its real effect. Gzuckier (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]