Language desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

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.

January 19[edit]

Sigismund('s) Bell[edit]

There's a little discussion at Talk:Sigismund Bell #Apostrophe about what the title of this article should be. It's about a bell called Dzwon Zygmunt or Dzwon Zygmunta in Polish, which may be rendered into English as either "the Sigismund Bell" or "Sigismund's Bell". The question is, which version sounds better in English? Sigismund is both the name of the bell itself and of the king who commissioned it, so both versions would make sense, albeit, in may opinion, the former would technically make more sense than the latter. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the bell's official name in Polish is "Królewski Dzwon Zygmunt" ("the" is not used in the Polish language), correctly translated into English as The Royal Bell "Sigismund"; Zygmunt (Sigismund) being the name ascribed to the bell itself. The popular colloquial name in Polish "Dzwon Zygmunta" literally means "Sigismund's Bell" in English. Currently the article title is simply "Sigismund Bell" which I thought sounded awkward. Although recently the article "the" has been added and has alleviated some of the previous need to address the matter, "technically speaking", the better solution would be to use an accurate translation of the official name of the bell and mentioning the popular or colloquial names in the lead or elsewhere in the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy of Did you take train to school and eat mash potatoes for lunch[edit]

What does Did you eat mash potato for lunch/take train to school mean when I ask about Mexican and white query? Where have eat potato/taking train at this case came from.--69.228.145.57 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means precisely what the person says it means; he was using it as an example of a nonsensical question, to say that your own question is nonsensical. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's presenting something as "either... or" when in reality there are other options (eg "neither" or "both") --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, 69, your original question was a variety what in logic is known as a non sequitur, and the responder was giving an example of a more obvious non sequitur as an illustration. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizo and white are both words describing race. Mexican and American are words describing nationality. You were using one nationality word and one race word, but you can't compare things like that because it's comparing "apples and oranges" ("comparar papas y boniatos"). If you still want to know, you might get the right answer by asking "In mestizo-white families are white husbands with a mestizo wives more common, or mestizo husbands with white wives?" AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Japanese[edit]

I picked up a bit of Japanese by watching a lot of anime. I noticed that they often use the words "wakatta", "wakarimashta" and "wakarimashiou" to mean "understand". Why are there three different words to convey the same meaning? Is there any difference between the three words? Thanks in advance. 117.194.224.54 (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wakatta" is the basic (casual) past tense form of the verb "wakaru", to know/understand. "Wakarimashita" is the past tense in the polite form. You would typically use "wakatta" with friends or equals, and "wakarimashita" with superiors or people you don't know. Not sure about the third one, is there another way you can think of writing that down? TomorrowTime (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is surely わかりましょう (wakarimashō). 61.121.241.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. The last one can also be written as "wakarimashō" (or "wakarimashiyou" if written by converting each character from Hiragana to English).117.194.224.54 (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. While the first two are a very basic and common form (meaning "I/you/he/... understood/understands something"), "wakarimashō" means either "let's understand" or it can be an order from someone considering himself far superior - "you will understand" - this second one is archaic and not really in much use today. Although I suppose in the world of anime you might hear it more often :) Either way, "wakarimashō" is far less common than the first two, that's why I asked for clarification. I thought maybe what you had in mind could also be "wakarimasu yo", which means "I/he/she/they understand/s".

Also, a quick note regarding romanisation of Japanese: when converting hiragana character by character, there are specific rules for writing the little "yu", "yo" and "ya". Read more about it here. I suppose your intention was to make the hiragana perfectly clear, but as you can see from the article I linked to, this can sometimes lead to confusion. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other words for 'understand/understood' as well, that you may not have noticed. Examples would be 「了解（しました/いたしました）」('ryoukai shimashita/itashimashita') and「かしこまりました」('kashikomarimashita') and derivatives thereof. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kashikomarimashita.... Haven't been in Japan (and conversely, in a Japanese convenience store) in the last ten years, and that sounds really natsukashii :) TomorrowTime (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the third one, it is also used in a rhetorical question and translated as "how could I/we/she/he know?". Being a Japanese native speaker, I rarely use the third one in a declarative sentence personally. It is not a good usage. Oda Mari (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definite article prefacing proper nouns (specifically road names)[edit]

My wife and I have a little dispute going on about whether or not the definite article should preface the names of roads. A little background, she is from the Pasadena, CA area, and I am from Northern Michigan. In Southern California, the major freeways in the area are referred to by prefacing the definite article, e.g. "The 210" or "The 210 Freeway", even on the local news. Where I grew up, we generally simply refer to the proper name of a road, such as "US-131" shortened to just "131". The way my wife refers to road names appears to be very awkward to me, but what would be the proper usage of the definite article, if there is one. Zharmad (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no "proper usage" in this case; it's a regionalism, and as far as I'm aware only Southern Californians insert the definite article before interstate and other ~~highway names~~ (should have said, more specifically, numbered highways). (Edited to add!: I should have added "in the USA" after "aware"! I know the British use "the" before motorway names, the M5 and so on....) In Northern California, it's "101" and "I-80" without the article, as it is throughout the country except for Southern California. I'd be hard-pressed to say that your wife is "wrong," however; it's just a regionalism that developed where she grew up, and it's no more "wrong" than an Upper Midwesterner calling a carbonated drink "pop."

(As for definite articles preceeding other proper names, that's a case-by-case situation, as I'm sure you know: "the Golden Gate Bridge" and "the Empire State Building" vs. "Disneyland," or "Mr. Jones," for that matter.) Moncrief (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and I just was curios on my part, no sense in jeopardizing marital bliss over something so minor, besides, I remember the looks I got when I dropped eh at the end of a sentence while I was in training at Fort Knox one time. Zharmad (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada (well, in Ontario) we say "the 401", "the Gardiner", etc. This is just for the big 400-series highways though. For the smaller ones we say "Highway 11", Highway 27", no article, and sometimes just the number would work. Regular roads inside a city don't have an article either (Yonge Street, Bloor Street), unless that is actually part of the name (The Queensway (Toronto), The West Mall). But for the large numbered American highways I wouldn't use an article (I-95, etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the northeastern US, we use the definite article only before named superhighways (e.g., "the Cross-Bronx Expressway" in New York, "the Southeast Expressway" in Massachusetts), never before numbered roads. Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same in St. Louis, Missouri.—msh210℠ 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK (I'm British :) ) "the" is almost always used ("Just go down the M6, take junction 23" or "It's just of the A6 at Fulwood....."). To not use the definite article sounds odd to my ears ("It's about 10 miles down M6") doktorb _words^deeds 16:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Wiki section on this topic, specifically regarding California: California_English#Freeway_Nomenclature Moncrief (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The [highway name]" is certainly a California thing. By comparison, in the Chicago area, the trafficopter reporters will say "294", etc., for numbered highways - but "the Eisenhower", "the Kennedy", "the Edens", "the Dan Ryan", etc., where freeways have names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I can think of where I ever use "the" is for "the bypass" (short for the Camp Hill bypass in Pennsylvania). I'm not sure exactly why, since I don't use "the" for other roads with descriptive names ("River Road", not "The River Road", and "Lower Gambier Road", not "The Lower Gambier Road"). Perhaps the reason for that particular road is that "Camp Hill Bypass" is not officially its "name" (it's just US-11/US-15) but that's what people call it for one reason or another. For all other roads, I don't use an article ("take 80 west to Des Moines, then go south on 35...").

As for your question...regardless of the particulars, I would say just be like me and avoid talking about roads/driving with your wife/girlfriend at all costs. Avoid it like the plague! It never turns out well ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Buffalo, they use the definite article before freeway numbers -- perhaps due to Canadian influence? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese letters “Ċ” and “Ġ”[edit]

Why is in Maltese the letter “Ċ” a solar letter and the letter “Ġ” a lunar letter? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Standard Arabic, sun letters are those that change the /l/ of a preceding al-, presumably because they use the crown of the tongue and therefore trigger full assimilation. Since Maltese is quite different from Standard/Classical Arabic, the designation of certain sounds/letters as solar or lunar may be less articulatorily based and more etymological. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) sun letters don't include ج because it's not a coronal sound (made with the tip of the tongue) - it's a little further back on the tongue, and historically, further back (if the Egyptian pronunciation as [g] can be used as evidence. There is no [tʃ] in MSA, so when they integrated the Italian and English words, where the Italians are using the tip of their tongue to articulate [tʃ], it was interpreted as a sun letter. I haven't checked, but I would assume that Italian words with an initial [dʒ] are grouped with the Arabic ones, and are moon letters. I would expect that historically there has been a bit of ambiguity with some Italian words with an initial [dʒ], but that is pure supposition. My practical abilities in Maltese are only very basic. Steewi (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that coronals are also made with the blade of the tongue. If anyone uses the tip of their tongue to articulate [tʃ], it's more likely to come out [tʂ]. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well corrected. I know a professor or two that'd have my hide for that mistake. Steewi (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]