Language desk
< May 29	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 31 >

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 30[edit]

Greeting in an email[edit]

If I were writing a formal email to several people, what would be a good way to greet them? Is "Good day all" fine? Also, should I capitalise the "a" in "all"? Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people simply omit the greeting, especially in an email to multiple recipients. Personally, I still prefer a greeting. Depending on the audience, in a business email, I typically open with something like "Team members," or "Project members," or occasionally "Colleagues". You say that this is a "formal email". To me "Good day all" sounds a little informal, but it also sounds Australian, and I am not familiar enough with Australian English to be sure how formal or informal "Good day" sounds, if you are Australian. Salutations such as "Dear" seem not to be used much in email, though it wouldn't hurt to put that in front of "team members", "blog readers", "cycling enthusiasts", or whatever label properly describes your audience to give your opening a softer edge than simply addressing them directly, which is businesslike but maybe a little harsh. Marco polo (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your second question, if you do go with "Good day all", I would say don't capitalise the "all". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, guys. I'm in South Africa and it's an email to people I work with but it was to quite a few people and I didn't want to sound too casual - more businesslike. I decided to go with "Good afternoon". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australians don't really say "Good day" that's more British and is less formal when "all" is added. We speak G'day as a "hi" but use Hi in emails. Marco polo's Dear readers style seems good. Hello works with a group as well... as well as no fanfare at all. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese characters[edit]

I'm trying to learn Chinese (Mandarin) and when it comes to writing I use this site ([1]) to learn the stroke order of the characters among other thing. However, I've noticed small differences in the shape of some characters. In this example [2] , you can see some differences in the text version of the character and the animated version. For example, you can see a small difference in the 女 component (the second stroke doesn't go above the last horizontal stroke in the animated version). And also, the "wings" on the 禾 component are slightly different.

So I'm just curious about whether small differences like this can be ignored or whether i should try to stick to one (perhaps the text version). Im sure im probably obsessing about nothing but i just don't want to spend time learning one thing only to have to relearn it another way. 212.120.247.132 (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical conventions dictate that both forms are in use. When 女 is written as a radical, it is often written without the second stroke ノ going above the 一, but this is hardly noticeable in handwriting so I don't see you'll have a problem. It's like wondering whether to join the two crossbars of the 't's in 'tit' and then deciding that if someone doesn't do that you have to relearn the word. Don't worry about it.--ChokinBako (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as languages which use the Roman alphabet have different fonts, the advent of modern printing in East Asia spawned different fonts for Chinese. The two different fonts used on the webpage you cite, 圓 for the static character and 宋 for the animated character respectively correspond to sans-serif and serif fonts used for the Roman alphabet. As the Song font, like all other fonts that try to emulate the character type used in pre-modern Chinese printed materials, is based on the conventions of Chinese calligraphy, it's characters are comprised from the eight composite strokes exemplified by the character "yong" 永 (點、橫、竪、撇、捺、挑、折、勾). Sans-serif Chinese fonts adhere to the five stroke classification method (橫、竪、撇、點、折）promulgated by the national National Language Committee in 1988 in the "Modern Chinese Comprehensive Character List" 《現代漢語通用字表》 . When writing characters by hand, unless you are practicing calligraphy with a brush 毛筆, it's easier to write them using the five stroke method. If you are serious about learning Chinese characters and their stroke order (筆順), I strongly urge you to first study and understand the individual strokes themselves (壁畫), as they are both integral components which are necessary to grasp in order to achieve competence in Chinese literacy. Aas217 (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Ming (typeface) (Song typeface in China, Ming in Japan/Korea) and East Asian gothic typeface. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this language bastardization method?[edit]

Looking for a term (and more info on the study of) the phenomenon where speakers of language A, with a barely passing knowledge of language B, are faced with a B-speaking person, and try (usually derisively) to communicate with person B by bastardizing Language A with the linguistic characteristics of language B.

One simple example: "I needo to buyo a shirto" where A=English and B=Spanish.

It's not really a language game although it may be constructed with the same sensibilities, but is more an ignorant and half-hearted attempt at interlanguage.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word you're looking for is pidgin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that. The pidgin article says "Not all simplified or 'broken' forms of language are pidgins. Pidgins have their own norms of usage which must be learned to speak the pidgin well." I wouldn't even call that "broken Spanish" (or "broken B") since that would be a good faith effort to speak B in a very simplified way with traces of A coming through. Unfortunately, I don't have a good word for what you are describing and I doubt if there is much study of it (especially if you mean the derisive version). --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The example you gave is considered Spanglish. According to the article, "In the vernacular, Spanglish is a jocular mix-up of Spanish and English wherein the speaker renders an English word to sound Spanish in a jokingly demeaning way". The article also says that "Spanglish is a prime example of a pidgin language". So, you'd indeed be referring to a pidgin, at least "in the vernacular". Kreachure (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what the article means, my dear Kreachure. The vernacular "Spanglish" refers to the joking phenomenon, the phoney Spanish, but the term "Spanglish" not vernacular refers to the pidgin, the blending of the two languages. Two different things are called by the same name, "Spanglish". We could call "No tickee, no shirtee" Chinglish, but we don't. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Code-switching seems to be a possibly adequate description too (especially its mechanics). Couldn't tell you which one's better, though. Kreachure (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Spanglish article. Spanglish is not a pidgin as there are some complicated sociolinguistic characteristics that would need to be in play for it to be one (Spanglish itself is code-switching). The situation the OP has put forth is not code switching since one must be reasonably fluent in both registers (in this case Spanish and English) to actually switch from one code to the other.

Our article on creole languages mentions the "foreigner talk" theory of creole genesis that is similar: "Native speakers attempt to simplify their language in order to address speakers who do not know their language at all." This is a shaky theory for creole genesis but this is probably the best term we're going to find for this phenomenon (if it's anything other than a stereotyped attempt at communication). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except code-switching requires bilinguency (is that a word?). What I'm describing is expressly unilingual (at least in regards to the languages involved). I suppose "broken language" is the best description... - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone does not know this, but for the record, "needo", "buyo" and "shirto" are not remotely valid Spanish words nor even remotely close (e.g. cognate) to their intended Spanish translations. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quod pro quo[edit]

Why do we say "quid pro quo" instead of "quod pro quo"? Surely the correct grammar is "quod" because quid is neuter singular nominative when used in a question, whereas quod is the same in a statement. Or so I remember reading. Can anyone help? t.i.a. 203.221.127.63 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Quod' is used in a question, 'quid' in a statement. You've got it backwards.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interrogative pronouns are quis, quis, quid; relative pronouns are qui, quae, quod.

Because the expression comes from a question: "What [will you give] for what?" Your version would make sense too – the consideration "which [is given] for what" – but these things have their own history. —Tamfang (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]