Language desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

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.

April 1[edit]

New Oxford dictionary[edit]

Is it true that the word 'gullible' has been removed from the latest edition?--178.101.224.162 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed only from editions printed on April 1st. Akld guy (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But very sad to see it has also removed "womp". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"Womp womp" was used to describe Oxford's 2014 Word of the Year, which is a synonym for "suck" that isn't "blow". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Chinese references in Bertha Sneck[edit]

I'm trying to establish if this person is notable. Do any of the Chinese language sources in the article meet the criteria of being reliable sources and do they discuss Sneck in depth, or just as passing mention/s? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the external links and one footnote in that article:

北京周报社：北京周报社外国专家史克逝世 Fremdsprachenamt Chinas, 10 March 2010. -->"Fremdsprachenamt Chinas" seems to be German for "China International Publishing Group". The article cited seems to be a press release from Beijing Weekly announcing that their consultant (Sneck) has died. It probably satisfies RS.
中国外文局郭晓勇：打造传播中国的“出海之船” China.org.cn, 10 September 2009. --> China.org.cn is a government propaganda portal. Oddly, the article cited is not linked. Googling the title brings up the article on china.com.cn, which says it was originally published in International Talent (《国际人才交流》) (website), which is a periodical that has been published by a government body since 1989, so I think it probably satisfies RS. However this article only says that Sneck was still alive and was one of several consultants who were valuable to the International Publishing Bureau.
王立礼：我的美国老师史克 http://www.xinyifanyi.com/news.asp?id=1396, 29 January 2013 --> This is an article published on the website of a commercial translation service provider, but which originates from a personal blog. I do not think this satisfies RS. It is mainly about Sneck.
《牛虻》在中国的流行与误读（二） http://www.shzgh.org/renda/node5661/node5663/node15864/userobject1ai1767668.html, 21 March 2016 --> This article appears on the website of the Shanghai Writers' Association, an official body, and says it originally appeared in Dongfang Daily, a daily newspaper in Shanghai, so I think it probably satisfies RS. The article is mainly about The Gadfly, but Sneck is mentioned in more than one place as part of the narrative of how The Gadfly came to the attention of Chinese writers and academics.
走近北外 | 北京外国语大学老一辈英语教育家们的故事（连载六：史克、陈梅洁） http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA5MDQzMTYwNg==&mid=400167521&idx=1&sn=4122b199d0ea2031084943f0c13b8a6f#rd, 21 March 2016 --> This is a social media / blog post that appears on Wechat, a Chinese social media platform. I do not think this satisfies RS. The post is part of a series about English educators, and about half of this particular post is about Sneck.
Chou 2009, S. 350; 毛泽东：对四位美国专家的一张大字报的批语 (8. September 1966). In: 《建国以来毛泽东文稿》. Beijing: 中央文献出版社, 1998, Vol. 12, p. 126f., ISBN 7-5073-0397-7 and 毛泽东：对四位美国专家的一张大字报的批示 (29 August 1966). In: 《毛泽东思想万岁》 Vols. 1961–1968, p. 350, Beijing: Samisdat, (2005?). --> I don't know what "Samisdat" means, is it German? This footnote cites some comments by Mao Zedong that were collated and published in a collection of manuscripts. Mao's comments were in response to a "large-character poster" written by Sneck and others. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "Samisdat" means, is it German? -- no, it's Samisdat. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting a Soviet subversive publisher was operating in Beijing in 2005 and published a book called "Long Live Mao Zedong Thought"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word just means "underground publishing"; it's not limited to USSR -- the article gives examples of samizdat publications in Poland, Lithuania, Iran and the US. Presumably, an overt publication of Long Live Mao Zedong Thought had been impossible in Beijing in 2005. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "Samizdat" can be used to describe underground publishing outside the USSR does not mean using "samisdat" as if it were the name of a publisher is correct in English. I think "Samisdat" is the German form of "Samizdat" and that may be acceptable usage for that meaning in German, but that does not mean it is correct when it is carried over into English. Long Live Mao Zedong Thought is not a new book and it is hardly subversive. Does "Beijing : Samisdat" mean someone made an illicit photocopy of it in 2005 in Beijing? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. So we have at least passing mentions in a few RS. Are the multiple mentions of Sneck in number 4 enough to justify it being considered in-depth coverage of her? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Sneck's role in the narrative is somewhat peripheral: the article says that Sneck wrote a letter to a Chinese writer, which was passed on to the Writer's Association. Sneck's letter said that Voynich was living without any savings, which led eventually to the Chinese government sending some money to Voynich. The article has a brief introduction of Sneck's husband Hinton, and explained the relationship between Hinton and Voynich (Voynich was a great-aunt), and thus how Sneck came to know about Voynich's condition. The article seems to assume that Sneck's name was sufficiently well known to readers that no further introduction of her was necessary. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's enough. Heading to AfD. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps you to decide, looking for Sneck's Chinese name on mainstream websites via Google mainly turns up articles about officials from the State Administration of Foreign Experts visiting her (along with other experts): see here and here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives[edit]

In English, your aunt or uncle is the sibling of your parent. Is this only for blood relationship or marriage relationship or both? How do you indicate the former spouse of your aunt or uncle if the aunt or uncle is divorced? Or is that identified as just an acquaintance because of the lack of blood relationship to the first degree? By what degree will a family member cease being recognized as family? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You call your aunt or uncle's spouse an aunt or uncle too. English is really bad at labels for family relationships, so you really have to use more words to describe the relationship specifically. For example "My mom's brother's wife" or "My mom's brother's former wife, who is now divorced from my uncle". StuRat (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above, with the added note that older friends of the family might also be given the term as an honorific, to distinguish them from more casual friends. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informally, the definition can be considerably wider than "the sibling of your parent", but more on that below.

"Is this only for blood relationship or marriage relationship or both?" Both. For example, the man who marries your mother's or father's sister becomes your uncle.

"How do you indicate the former spouse of your aunt or uncle if the aunt or uncle is divorced?" Informally, it makes no difference. The former spouse is still your uncle or aunt and you would refer to him/her that way in conversation. If your blood-relation aunt or uncle remarries after the divorce, the new spouse becomes uncle/aunt too.

"By what degree will a family member cease being recognized as family?" Only at death, really.

Informally, uncle and aunt can be much looser than the definitions given. They can apply to a boyfriend or girlfriend or even just a plain ordinary friend of your aunt/uncle, where appropriate.

It can extend a generation or more. For example, I'm referred to as uncle by the children of my sister's sons, whereas by your definition of "sibling of your parent", it should be only each son who is referred to as uncle by the other son's children. They are, but it extends a generation to me too. Akld guy (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to clarify "...uncle and aunt can be much looser than the definitions given. They can apply to a boyfriend or girlfriend..." As written, it sounds like it should have "You might be a redneck if..." tacked on the front. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I wrote "informally". And in the part of the world where I live, aunt and uncle can indeed be used very loosely, without implying anything like you suggest. If you're speaking on behalf of Americans (who make up a whopping 5 percent of the world's population), you need to understand that your joke would be very offensive in parts of the world where aunt and uncle may be used a lot more loosely than they might be in the US. Akld guy (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It works the other way too. Uncles and aunts by marriage lose their nieces and nephews when they divorce. And if they had step-children (natural children of their ex-spouse from an earlier partner), they're no longer that either. Unless they were formally adopted, in which case they ceased being step-children anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may be formally true, but many might continue the relationship and still use the old names. I find that if a couple get divorced with no children, that tends to sever the relationship to each other's families, but if there are children of the marriage, that tends to maintain the relationship with each other's families. (In some cases the in-laws may ever prefer the no-longer-related person over their blood relative.) StuRat (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A case in point is my ex. She had a girlfriend in school, and became close friends with her whole family, except one of her brothers, who kept a low profile and was hardly ever around. She finally met the friend's brother, one thing led to another, and he became her first husband. After she divorced him, she had no further contact with him whatsoever (he didn't even attend his own mother's funeral, to avoid seeing my ex), but she maintained a close friendship with the sister and her husband and their 4 kids. Formally, she ceased to be an aunt and a sister-in-law when she divorced, but that made no difference to their relationships in practice. I was even considered a sort of uncle when we were married. But then, these were all Russians, and they have their special ways. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not English language or Americans but Eskimo kinship.
Sleigh (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]