Language desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

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.

December 4[edit]

English Language Punctuation[edit]

Is it possible to end a sentence in a colon and follow it in a capital letter:

If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features.

?174.3.102.6 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be entirely in order if the capital letter was the first letter of a proper noun, but you may not have had such an instance in mind. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict:) It's a question that has often crossed my mind, but I think my usual answer is no. The reader wants to know where sentences begin and end, and starting a new sentence before another one seems finished confuses the matter. However, this is really a matter of convention—which changes over time and between countries—and personal style (unless you have to meet a publisher's, employer's or school's style rules). The question becomes more complicated if you're putting the material being introduced by the colon on a separate line, usually as one of several bullet points. General practice, I think, in these cases is to capitalize the beginnings of full sentences or clauses, but not to capitalize the beginnings of unattached nouns, phrases or sentence fragments. Sentences and full clauses could be separated with semi-colons or periods (full stops); unattached words and phrases could be separated with commas or semi-colons. I may give an example if necessary. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's possible. Some style manuals even recommend it in situations such as the example you've cited—one that happens to be within my reach says, dogmatically, "The first word after a colon usually should be capped when it begins a complete sentence." Other manuals suggest using a capital letter in some cases but not in others. The Wikipedia style manual says, "Sometimes, more in American than British usage, the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence." Unless one is following a particular house style, this is a matter in which a writer can be guided by his or her own preference and sense of fitness in particular situations. Deor (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add one big variable: the two uses of full colons. In American and much modern usage, they're usually used when the material that follows the colon is in some sense subordinate to what precedes it. ("There was one big reason that this could not happen: ...", "Here are the main rules you should follow: ..."). But traditional usage, which sometimes applies today, also used the colon to separate two sentences or clauses of equal or parallel value ("Men are from Mars: Women are from Venus.") American usage today will often separate those equal clauses with a semi-colon instead. Traditional Bibles, Psalters, hymnals, litanies and prayer books would often use colons to break up single verses, the second half often being the choir's or congregation's response to the first half spoken by the priest or cantor ("Lift up your hearts: We lift them up unto The LORD.") In the specific example given in the original query, I would probably drop the capital from "Try" as it seems to follow the previous point rather than to stand independently and equal to it. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comma in the title of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was offering that as a hypothetical example where some styles might use a colon (parallel clauses of equal value), but was also curious as to the book's actual title (having failed to construct live Wikilinks with semicolons or the reverse order). —— Shakescene (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found it by entering the first four words into the search box. Also, there is more information at Subtitle (titling).

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two parallel clauses of equal value are normally separated by a semicolon ( or just a comma), not a colon. Dbfirs 13:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on when and where, because British usage, as I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to explain above used to separate (and may still separate) parallel clauses of equal value with a colon, as in the Bible, etc. Try to read a King James Bible following modern rules, and you'll get frustrated (as I did) when the second clause doesn't seem to be subordinate in its meaning to the first. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily subordinate, but following on (and often expanding upon) the previous clause (for a colon). The best illustration I have seen is to think of a semi-colon as a see-saw, and a colon as a springboard, but I agree that usage has varied over time. I still use a semi-colon as a "long comma", though I'm told that this is no longer "correct" according to some. I've always been happy with the AV bible usage where the second clause follows on from the first and the order is not usually reversible, so a colon is necessary, not a semi-colon. Dbfirs 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colon (punctuation)#Use of capitals says: "In English, a colon may be followed either by a capital letter or by a lower case letter, depending on usage." Incidentally, I see the original poster's example as only one sentence, beginning with "If", ending with "features", and having a capital T in its middle. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German translation[edit]

from de:Wiener Neustädter Lokomotivfabrik

"Da sich das dafür angebotene Gelände im Nordosten von Wiener Neustadt zum Teil auf einer aufgelassenen Wattefabrik und zum anderen Teil auf einer alten Gewehr- und Metallschleiferei befand, ..."

translated page Wiener Neustädter Lokomotivfabrik

"The plant was built on land to the north-east of Wiener Neustadt in part on an abandoned cotton factory, and partly on an rifle and metal finishing plant."

What is "einer alten Gewehr- und Metallschleiferei befand" properly translated - I'm sure I've got it wrong - old rifle and cutlery manufacturer ???Shortfatlad (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you've got here is a dependent clause that should be translated something like this:

"Because the site in the northeastern part of Wiener Neustadt (that was) offered for it was partly on (the grounds of) an abandoned wadding (cotton wool) factory and partly on an old gun- and metal-grinding factory,..."

If you are getting stuck on befand, understand that the full verb is sich befand, preterite of sich befinden, which means something like "to find oneself" or "to be located". Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence was

Da sich das dafür angebotene Gelände im Nordosten von Wiener Neustadt zum Teil auf einer aufgelassenen Wattefabrik und zum anderen Teil auf einer alten Gewehr- und Metallschleiferei befand, entstand daher später der Ausdruck Schleife für das Gelände der Lokomotivfabrik.

I was really wondering exactly what a "Gewehr- und Metallschleiferei" was ? what exactly did it do/make..Shortfatlad (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gewehr- und Metallschleiferei means "rifle and metal-grinding/polishing works". So the main products were rifles and other metal products that require grinding and/or polishing. I'm not really certain what these products would be, other than rifles, but I would imagine things like work knives, bayonet blades, ploughshares, and so on. I don't think that cutlery was made in the same rough way but would have been more of a handicraft before the late 19th century, so I've corrected my translation above. I think that the nickname Schleife in your sentence above is sort of a pun. Schleife really means "chute" or "slipway" (like the kind used to launch ships from shipyards), but it is a play on the word schleifen, meaning "polish", "grind", or "rub". I think the word Schleife implies that this was a shipyard for locomotives. Marco polo (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds right. There's definitely a joke in there.Shortfatlad (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't believe Schleife is a pun here. You are reading way to much in this. It's just short for Schleiferei. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

British Or North American[edit]

I just want to clarify, is Wikipedia:When to use tables in North American (American), or British English?174.3.102.6 (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice American English spelling in the guideline (eg. "organizing") and your preference for American English spelling in your lengthy discussions on the talk page. Astronaut (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My little OED pocket dictionary gives "ize" bfore "ise" - have a look at American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Greek spellings. Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is Oxford spelling. It is not standard British English. Algebraist 12:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I notice a serial comma: "Multiple columns, positioning, borders, and so on" which is more common in US than UK english, as the article on serial commas explains. --Pleasantman (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern British writers seem to ignore both the Oxford "ize" and the Oxford comma (and some seem to ignore the comma completely!). Fifty years ago, Oxford and Fowler seem to have had more influence on British usage, but even pedants have started ignoring these authorities. Dbfirs 17:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. My English teacher went to Oxford and I'm easily led. Alansplodge (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to correct or criticise, or even to advertise this pupularisation, just to add information. The big Oxford still gives the "ize" spellings, and some in England (especially Oxford dons?) would insist on keeping the "ize" ending for all words of Greek etymology. The move towards the "ise" endings seems to have gained speed recently, and use of "ise" for words derived from Greek was rare sixty years ago. Dbfirs 13:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd noticed that. People often say "ize" is American and we get into an argument. I may swim with the tide in the future and avoid the angst.Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not understood this at the beginning either, and so mistakenly, I sent a letter also to an editor to check the spelling of this book. Mihkaw napéw (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contour vowel 'a'[edit]

Why isn’t the phoneme '/ɑ/' considered as a 'contour vowel' in UK or US English but the phoneme '/ɑː/'? Mihkaw napéw (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a "contour vowel"; what does that mean? +An gr 07:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contour (linguistics) suggests it's another term for diphthong. Algebraist 13:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because their contours (formant frequencies) are flat? --Kjoonlee 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the formant frequency ‘flat’ in monophthong you mean the identical phonemes ('/ɑ/' verus '/ɑː/' ) which only differ in terms of their body mass (lengthened) in contrast to a diphthong. Is this correct? Mihkaw napéw (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you meant /a/ was not a contour vowel, but in fact the same vowel as /aː/. I consider them both monophthongs. --Kjoonlee 06:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are /a/ and /aː/ distinct phonemes for you? Do you have any example words for these sounds? --Kjoonlee 06:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. /a/ and /ɑ/ are different vowels. --Tango (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw many newly emerged or edited websites that are similar to all the recent discussions of the ‘WP Reference desk/language’ and more simplified (or in some cases little bit misled) versions than the pages few months ago. I am not sure but there was a comment from User:Wavelength if I can remember it correctly, saying that the phonemes /a/ and /ɑ/ are different phonemes of which the former has disappeared from US and UK English for the /æ/. However, I do pronounce many words in /a/ or /ʌ/ for /æ/, e.g. ‘Canada’ (which must be then an Algonquian endonym (for Kanata) or of the Latin or German /a/).

To the question whether the /a/ and /aː/ seem distinct phonemes to me, I do not know how that works. If these phonemes are not used in UK or US English, then there are not any words. Someone else may answer this.

In linguistic literatures, the long vowel of the ‘a’ (i.e. /ɑ/) has the higher F1 than the long vowel of its counterpart ‘/æ/’, but the /ɑ/ and /ɑː/ are in the same F1 in which the latter is a contour vowel but not a diphthong. However, I do not know any examples to distinguish these. Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any example words for all these sounds?

/a/
/aː/
/ɑ/
/ɑː/ --Kjoonlee 04:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some experts may give an accurate answer to this. I do not think there is a definitive answer to say something like—see, these are the examples and how these things work, because there are not any examples in Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries to fill all these categories. So one has to look at the language of the /a/ accent, e.g. Australian English. I know this only answers your last question and not the content in question. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying anymore. :( --Kjoonlee 06:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timbits a disabled slur?[edit]

Last night, I was photographing a mascot with some sledge hockey players. I wanted the mascot to do the same position as she did earlier in the night, with a Timbits Hockey team, and when I said Timbits, the coach cringed. Is Timbits a bad slang word? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Bits" is a synonym of "parts" and can be used as shorthand for private parts. That might be why your coach cringed but most people wouldn't. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that might be it, but I assumed it was specific to disabilities. Two things I should clarify, the mascot wasn't from that team, and more importantly, Timbits are an icon among Canadian food (their referred to elsewhere as doughnut centres/doughnut holes) Tim Hortons sponsors kids hockey teams, so the term is extremely common. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he wasn't cringing, or was reacting to something else...if he's Canadian he must know what Timbits and Timbits hockey is. Of course, it's possible for anything to be used as a slur, and that's a pretty good one, if that's what he thought it meant. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Timbits? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double euphemism[edit]

I clicked on private parts out of curiosity, and learned it's a euphemism for intimate parts. Checking there, I discover this term is also considered a euphemism. I've never come across a euphemism of a euphemism before. Are there any other examples? Or is it more accurate to say that 'private parts' and 'intimate parts' are merely different euphemisms for the same thing? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say in this case they're just different euphemisms for the same thing, but it is true that a euphemism can lose its euphemistic property over time and thus need a new euphemism for itself; this is the euphemism treadmill. +An gr 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, without checking sources, that the word "piss" originates by onomatopoeia, "pee" is a euphemism based on its initial letter, and "wee" is a euphemism for the euphemism. --Anonymous, 08:42 UTC, December 5, 2009.

That seems to qualify. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian to English: Poster translation[edit]

Hello, wondering if anyone can try and translate this poster? Over on Muppet Wiki, we're wondering what this show was, seeing that it had Sesame Street, Muppet, and Muppet Babies character in it, and we've never heard of this show. As many words as you can make out, that would be awesome, so we'd have some clue to work on. -- 99.228.45.121 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we've never heard of this show"?
МАППЕT ШОУ
Видеотеатр
на улице
СЕЗАМ

transliteration
MAPPET SHOU Videoteatr (or MUPPET SHOW Videotheatre)
na ulice SESAM (on the street SESAME)

so actually I think you have heard of it... Sussexonian (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Communist Russia, they translate posters from English to Russian. —Akrabbim^talk 19:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP, in saying "we've never heard of this show", perhaps meant he or she had never heard of this particular presentation/spectacle/program, not to say he or she had never heard of Sesame Street? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the phrase "маппет шоу на улице сезам" from the poster and found this. It is a Google cache of a page from the South Ural News Service from July 2, 1998. Here is a translation of the relevant news item:

"MUPPET SHOW ON LENIN PROSPECT -- On the 75th anniversary of the regional museum of local history here, there has opened yet another exhibition 'The Muppet Show on Sesame Street' [маппет шоу на улице сезам]. Chelyabinsk is the sixth city of Russia to which this interesting exhibition has been brought. In it are represented about 20 puppets, display stands acquainting visitors with the work of Jim Henson, the author of the world-famous show, and a video studio, which allows any visitor to control the characters, watching their actions through television monitors, as it is done by professionals. You can immerse yourself in this fabulous world for 10 or 15 rubles — the cost of a ticket for a child and adult. The exhibition will last until the end of August."

This may be what you are after. --Cam (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted the word "выставка" (exhibition) under the A in "СЕЗАМ" so that supports the museum exhibition theory. Can't make out the rest of the fine print in the photo. --Cam (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by "this show" I meant stage show based on the TV program(s). We've got tons of international stage productions on Muppet Wiki, we thought this might be one.

But that's equally as interesting, that it was a museum exhibit, and touring exhibit at that! Thanks everyone, for your help, it's much appreciated! -- Zanimum (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]