Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 August 15

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August 14 Language desk archive August 16 >

what is litrary meaning of "Gilead"?

what is litrary meaning of hebrew name "Gilead"

Literary, as in the Book, or literal, Gilead or Gil'ad means hill of witness. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

elegant variation

I want to know this for long: is elegant variation mandatory in journalistic writings? that is, would an editor actually correct a journalist's writing if he or she doesn't varies his terms "elegantly"? and how about the practice in other other languages? Thanks--K.C. Tang 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Variation is good, even mandatory, or, more specifically, an editor will often remove repetition. It is elegant (or inelegant) variation that Fowler is objecting to.--Shantavira 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In articles about film, the Dutch news agency ANP often uses the old-fashioned synonym rolprent. Editors at the newspapers I've worked for will immediately replace this with film; repetition is not considered as bad as "elegance". David Sneek 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

say, I have written an article about Michael Jordan. In the article, after the first appearance of the name Michael Jordan, I just used "he" or "Jordan" to refer to him. When the article comes to an editor's hands, will he or she automatcially replace my "he"s and "Jordan"s with "the former Bulls star", "the father of three", "the four-time MVP" and so and so...Will he or she do that?--K.C. Tang 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We would have to meet this hypothetical author to find out. --Nelson Ricardo 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine any editor wasting their time by doing that.--Shantavira 06:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, I think so, so it's just the journalists...--K.C. Tang 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice this less as variation for its own sake than as a crude way to cram bits of ‘color’ where they don't belong. —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

after death

is there any thing after death is anybody in the world knows anyting after death````````

Why do you pose that question here? Look at death and afterlife. 惑乱 分からん 13:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

.....and decomposition.--Shantavira 17:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your religion or philosophy. It's not something science is particularly good at predicting. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one way to find out. :) DirkvdM

Note however that Wikipedia isn't responsible for any harm that could follow, by advice given here... :S 惑乱 分からん 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'Spelling' a pack of cards

If we take a deck of 52 playing cards, then by spelling out the value of each of the thirteen ranks in one suit, (A-C-E, T-W-O, T-H-R-E-E, ..., K-I-N-G) you can go through exactly 52 cards dealing one card for each letter. It can also be done with the same deck in French (A-S, D-E-U-X, T-R-O-I-S, ... , R-O-I).

Are there any other languages in which you can do this? Even allowing for decks of cards with fewer / more cards per suit?

Thanks in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.249.163 (talk • contribs)

There almost certainly are, as this simply calls for an average of four letters in each word. And there are lots of languages to choose from.--Shantavira 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you meant to ask how many letters there are in total in the names of cards in various languages then you sure asked it in a complicated way. Or is this for some card-trick? If not, it sounds too much like numerology. DirkvdM 08:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"too much"? Do you have some sort of bias against numerology? JackofOz 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you? DirkvdM 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "numerology". I don't accept that numbers in themselves have any innate predictive power, but that's not to say there's no value at all in exploring the associations that have been traditionally attributed to them. But you're the one who mentioned this subject first, so why don't you tell us what you're on about. JackofOz 04:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Numerology is about assigning 'magic' properties to numbers. If this is not for a card-trick then it seems to suggest some magical connection between the number of letters in cards and the number of cards. The two are logically unrelated, so suggesting a connection would be numerology. Either that or it's too trivial even to my taste. DirkvdM 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"All of which" to start a sentence ??

(Please forgive the cross-post, but I asked my question in perhaps the wrong place at User_talk:Chris_the_speller#"All_of_which"_to_start_a_sentence_??. I am pointing the original post to this page. The following post is edited for page-appropriateness. -- RayBirks 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

...

As a relative Wikipedia newbie, I've started making my own contributions. A recent grammar fix--which I thought was minor--to someone else's main article contribution, brought on a near-immediate reversion to the original by its author. This could balloon into something unnecessarily big. It may be too late to prevent that, as my grammar police impulse already feels wounded. (Ow.)

If you look at what is presently section 1.3 of Sam Harris (author)#Islam, you'll note it starts with "All of which lunacy...". To my American ear, this is an incorrect use of the word "which." Except in unusual cases, the pronoun "which," when referring to earlier antecedents, is nearly always used in a clause and not as the subject of a sentence. When the United Kingdom writer on 11 August 2006 restored my correction of "All of this lunacy" to "All of which lunacy," I hesitate to do battle, as perhaps the King's English allows such things, although I doubt it.

So, my question is...: Where can one go to find a Wikipedia-based grammar expert? Have I really erred in my correction? When and how does one decide which fray to enter? Why am I awake at 3:00 am in my time zone talking about grammar? Will Wikipedia soon take over my life? (Rhetorical questions end here.)

Thanks in advance for any pointers. -- RayBirks 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Englishman, it seems acceptable to me, though it certainly isn't particularly attractive, and 'All of this..' would be my preference. But, I don't believe there's anything wrong with it, although I'm no expert. --81.111.23.140 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Relatives particles should never start sentences in English. They do in Latin (indeed, it is considered very stylish), but it is not an English form. "This" should be substituted. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam, please may I worship you? I feel better already. If you--or anyone else--can provide a citation, I think I would like to point the aforementioned author there. However, I do fear I may provoke an angry mastodon. --RayBirks 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you may worship me. I can't find a citation right now (it's rather late), but I can explain it. "Which" is a relative pronoun that qualifies an antecedent that occurs in the same sentence. Where it is not used qualifying something earlier in the sentence, "this" or "these" should be used. "This" is not a relative pronoun and therefore must exist in a seperate sentence. Note, I am British, and "all of which" to begin a sentence is certainly acceptable in common speech or for rhetorical effect. I don't think it's acceptable for Wikipedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"All of which...." sounds perfectly fine to my (British) ears. Perhaps a bit poetic/stylised compared with your (equally good) alternative. Similarly with "none of which" at the start of a sentence, as in "None of which should be taken as meaning....". "Which" meaning "the above". Jameswilson 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you, Jameswilson. I know about the "rules", eg. not starting sentences with "but", not splitting infinitives etc etc, but in less formal writing, starting with a relative particle is not only acceptable but also can be an element of a very readable and comprehensible style. Which is a good thing. JackofOz 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I too (a Kiwi) am quite happy with "all of which" to start a sentence. Most of the "rules" taught about split infinitives etc were invented by dead white males a mere few centuries ago to try and make English look more like Latin, and cool as Latin is, I disapprove on principle of obeying such pedants. To me, "all of which lunacy" and "all of this lunacy" are both right. --Zeborah 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeborah, can you point me/us to something that documents the past attempts to make English look more like Latin? This could address my inner battle for understanding about the desire for correctness in language, English in particular. Part of me understands that English is still growing at 900,000+ words; the other part sees that previously clear constructions and usages may be worth maintaining, even improving. Further, as a white male who will soon be dead, I wonder if any of my improvements on Wikipedia should even be attempted, since they may be likely to be discarded by others in a knee-jerk, mindless fashion simply because of who I am. With a manufactured language (Esperanto) at #15 and a dead language (Latin) at #53 [1], one could begin to wonder that so-called standards have some value, and I hope to find the wisdom of a worthwhile balance. (whew!) -- RayBirks 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 'all of which...' sounds fine to me too. Also, as a comment to the original poster, IMO conflicts over regional English spelling, phrasing, syntax etc, can be more vicious than content disputes, and with much less payoff. IMO pick your battles carefully, notwithstanding your beautiful new relationship with your hero Sam. Good luck to you both, BTW. ;-) Anchoress 06:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My fault

How do you say in Latin: "Nobody's perfect. To err is human. Shouting at me won't help" --Brandnewuser 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "Nemo perfectus est. Errare humanum est. Clamitationes conficiunt nihil." AnonMoos 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That could also mean "nobody has been completed." That is the origin of the English word "perfect" but it implies something else in Latin...but I'm not sure what word has the same sense as our "perfect", and for Brandnewuser's purposes I'm sure this is fine. Adam Bishop 06:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

absolutus also means perfect. —Daniel (‽) 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

translation chinese / Japanese

translation chinese / Japanese I was looking for the symbol or character that meant or reperesented the word "Player" and the word "free"... I wanted the chinese or Japanese characters/symbols that meant the corresponding meaning of the two english words/expressions above? Thanks

Would that correspond to gratis loose person? 惑乱 分からん 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also take care to not end up on Hanzi Smatter. When translating, context is important. You didn't specify which meaning of "player" or "free" you wanted. ColourBurst 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

are you looking at "libero" in soccer? it is sometimes rendered "free person" in Chinese.--K.C. Tang 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No character or symbol means "player" in Chinese, since "player" is not a simple concept, it is the combo of "play" and "-er". In Chinese, player can be translated into "玩家", "玩" means "play", and "家“ means "-er". "Free" can mean either freedom (自由) or free of charge (Traditional: 免費, Simplified: 免费) in English, you would better to give the context. Yao Ziyuan 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

btw, "player" is 球員 if you mean players in a ball games.--K.C. Tang 03:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Players in competitions can be referred to as 参赛者, while free can mean 空闲. Aran|heru|nar 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

allochtone (fr)

Please could a native French speaker give me a good translation/reference for "allochtone", found in "Parmi ceux qui ne savaient pas, figuraient des candidats de couleur et d'origine allochtone, ...". Thanks! Thomas, AL. Rugops 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Literally this originally Greek word means: "from elsewhere" or even more literally "from another ground". You could use "immigrant" or "foreign-born" or something like that in English. It is often also used sloppily and indiscriminately for the descendants of immigrants, although that is properly speaking not the meaning of the word. If you read French, a good reference is fr:Allochtone. English has "allochthonous", but as far as I know that is only used in geology, for rocks found in another spot than where they were formed. Disclaimer: I'm not a native French speaker.--Lambiam^Talk 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see we also have an article Allochtoon on the usage in Dutch. --Lambiam^Talk 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the French article starts with the the meaning in Dutch, which reinforces the notion I have that its usage in this sense is typically Dutch. As the article says, in the Netherlands it means someone of whom at least one parent was born outside the Netherlands (although it's really a bit more complicated than that). So the official meaning deviates from the original (literal) one. But in everyday life it is used as a euphemism for 'darkies'. I think the article says something like that about the usage in French, but my French is not really good enough. Take note that in French the word is only used in Walonia. DirkvdM 08:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Dutch meaning has infected Belgium. I bet the sentence about the ignorant candidates stems from Belgium. --Lambiam^Talk 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers. That was very helpful. I think the original quote come from a Belgian newspaper. Well done Lambiam! Rugops 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Of Polish Name

My Grandfather came from Poland In 1890 to the USA. He immigrated from Posen. Is there any other way to spell the name Szeszycki? I have seen it spelled Cieszycki. Are there any more variations?

Thank You Leonard Szeszycki

It could be (no IPA] : Shey chi ki. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to pronounce it. He was after alternative spellings, I think. JackofOz 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Yes I was looking for other ways to spell It. Leonard Szeszycki"

Copied from yookoso section. --Kjoonlee 06:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)