Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 February 18

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.

February 18

Sai Ong lost a horse ... (done)

Based on the 2200 year old parable of The Daoist Farmer who lost his Horse (horse +one comes back, son rides horse, breaks leg, soldiers get drafted, son gets spared..), the Chinese are supposted to have a proverb saying "Sai Ong lost a horse..." meaning "Okay, bad luck right now, but who knows...?".

(a) Is that true?

(b) What is the correct Latin and Chinese Transcription of this proverb?

Sai Ong Si Ma ?

西翁姒马 ?

Thanks for input! 213.169.161.126 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

After typing here the mandarin transliteration of the four characters you wrote above, it suddenly occurred to me that you were in fact asking what the proverb is in Chinese and whether your version is correct or not. If that is the case, unless no-one knows the specific answer (I don't, sorry), you may have to fall back on Google. I've just tried but for some reason a lot of the online dictionaries and proverb lists I usually use seem to be all simultaneously either down or having serious trouble fully loading. It may just be me and not the entire internets, so you could try. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The characters above are already a condensate of what can be found on the web. However, I'd like to receive a feedback of a native speaker, whether (a) "the proverb thing" is right and (b) if yes, how it's exactly written. Background: I am writing a WP-article about the subject (still waiting for a book to arrive which contains the "official" translation of the parable [which you can find 100.000-fold on the web - but with all kinds of additions and twists]). 213.169.161.126 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it myself - I'm no native speaker, soy knowledge of Chinese sayings are small. If you can read the characters alright, this is a list of saying about horses: [1]. I hope there's something usable there. Steewi (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop the press! I found it. It's 塞翁失马，焉知非福 Sai Weng shi ma, yan zhi fei fu. It's at wiktionary here: [2] Steewi (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is great! Thank you very much! I have been searching in an Engl.-Chin. dictionary but the Wiktionary is great! 213.169.161.126 (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I learned a new phrase as well. Steewi (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Hi

I was reading the article on Copy Protection and came across two words in the beginning of a short paragraph that reads:

"Companies that choose to publish works under copy protection do so because they believe that the added expense of implementing the copy protection will be offset by even greater increases in revenue by creating a greater scarcity of casually copied media."

Am I wrong? ...If not is it going to be fixed?

Thanks, NirocFX 41.193.16.234 (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that (things can be less scarce or more scarce), but by all means suggest an alternative wording.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Virgin

Due to an edit to the Lexi Belle article, I have a question. Which is more grammatically correct?

1. Both virgins, they attempted to use Saran Wrap as a contraceptive since they did not have a condom.
2. Both virgin they attempted to use Saran Wrap as a contraceptive since they did not have a condom.

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(1). (2) doesn't make any sense at all. +Angr 13:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(1), but deleting the comma and the word "they" would make it even more grammatically correct. Kingsfold (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, it would merely change the meaning of the sentence. +Angr 14:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer (1), but it's an interesting distinction. I don't think the second sentence is quite senseless, it's just that virgin is being used as group label, which is a little uncommon and clunky. Either that, or it's a mass noun :). Matt Deres (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is OK, but a comma after 'virgin' is mandatory. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Matt Deres (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit in question, which removed the "s," was just a test edit and not an attempt to improve the grammar at all. +Angr 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic: this is an example of how all of these porn star articles are written in a very inappropriate way. They relate the starlets' self-promotional claims about their sexual history as God's truth. It's obvious that the actress and their manager are not "reliable sources" about this and nothing they say on the subject can be taken at face value, because it's all part of the product and its advertisement that is intended to titillate and excite the audience, just like their orgasms on camera are "unverifiable". What texts like this should say is "she says she had never done sexual act X before the flick", "she says her first time involved her paedophilic uncle and a vacuum-cleaner and her second time was with 20 Yakuza men who gang-raped her" (this is actually a real example, although I don't remember the name of the actress). But all of this stuff is presented uncritically as fact - apparently because that's what fans and their penes want to believe, and such articles are inevitably written by enthusiastic porn fans. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that the Saran Wrap method is discussed in Heloise's Helpful Hints. In any case, that sentence could be worded better. For one, it could begin, "In her bio, she states that because they were both inexperienced..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The colour bronze - translation to Latin

I've fretted over this issue for quite a while now, what is the name of the colour bronze in Latin? I know bronze is aes but I want to avoid confusion with coins. Therefore, I'm here with this query. 130.238.56.209 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

An adjective meaning "bronze-colo(u)red" was aeneus or aheneus, which is found, among other places, in the name Ahenobarbus. Deor (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot for the explanation.  Done 130.238.56.209 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of a word the news media people use about terrorists returning to fight.

We hear often on the news on TV the expression " There is a very high "RESCVITATION Rate" of the prisoners freed from the prison on Cuba.

We cannot find the correct spelling nor the defination of the word in capitals above. We think the word sounds like RESEVETATION.

Can you help with this word spelling and defination. Thank you Patti Amherst NH.

wikt:recidivism. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So would they really say "recidivation" (or even "recidivication") in the US? In the UK, our criminals "reoffend" I believe[3][4]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not in my experience. "Recidivism" would be used in the contexts listed in the question. I think the "-tion" suffix in the question is just due to Ms. Amherst not being familiar with the word. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

watch someone give or giving

Which one is the correct way? Watch someone give birth or watch someone giving birth? --Belchman (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Give. +Angr 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've always said, but according to Google's suggestions "giving" is quite popular too... --Belchman (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A subtle distinction, I think, between the two: are you primarily watching the person, or the act? "Giving" for the first, "give" for the second. Bazza (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They are both correct, I think, just different tenses: present vs. present continuous. --Ludwigs2 16:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in response to Bazza (though please bear in mind that I´m no native speaker), I was tought that the (bare) infinitive form marks that the act (of giving birth) is observed almost completely, while the -ing form refers to a partial observation. Pallida  Mors 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That is, indeed, the case in isolation; but the original question was about "someone give/giving birth" and it was to this more complex consideration that I directed my response. Bazza (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I see your point. Pallida  Mors 17:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "Alight here" plain English?

I was on the London Underground yesterday and was struck that the automated announcements use the word "alight" (as in "Alight here for the British Museum"). I can never remember anyone using the word "alight" in conversation and I suspect would be unknown to anyone who has English as a second language. Is there a better word they could use? "Get off" seems a bit blunt. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think trams in the USA would simply say, "[such-and-such] Museum" just as the train is stopping. "Get off" is redundant. Obviously you have to get off the train if you're going to see the Museum. "Alight here" is funny usage, but you never know about them Brits. It gives me a mental picture of the passengers sprouting wings and gently landing on the platform like a pigeon or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It gives me a mental picture of the passengers on fire. +Angr 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's probably been a movie about that kind of situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The stop isn't actually at the museum, it's just the nearest stop to the museum. The automated announcements often list the tourist attractions that are best reached from the next stop. --Tango (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes a difference. Even in that context, I could imagine the "L" announcer saying, "Pleaz eggsit heah faw da Tribune Towuh, da Wrigley Buildin', and Billy Goat's Tavuhn." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 2)I was considering this last year while on the Underground. It seems that the only context in British English in which this word is used with this meaning is on the Tube! What about "depart" or "leave the train here for..."?--TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "disembark" or just plain "exit"? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Exit" would be good. I still say it's redundant. However, someone new to the city or someone not speaking English natively might imagine that they are now physically in the museum, so telling them to exit the train is probably safer. Although I would word it as, "Please exit the train", just to be clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bugs, I should have made the question clearer. The whole announcement goes: "This is Russel Square - alight here for the British Museum". So you would need to replace "alight" with another verb. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Please exit here for the British Museum, the Royal Pub, and many entertaining street performers." The front part of that would seem to be a better way to say it. I wonder if the folks who manage the Tube are reading this right now? If not, they are not likely to change it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of sending your opinions in an email to Boris[5]. You never know what might happen. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The word alight is found in at least 24 general dictionaries. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "alight" is certainly the Standard English word for "get off/out of a vehicle", I don't think anyone is questioning that. The question is whether it is unnecessary to use the precise word when a more general, and better known, word would convey the same information. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No question it's a normal word. It just seems funny in this context, but maybe it's more commonly used in British English than American English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Alight" is just as commonly seen on Australian PT. That, or "disembark". But in plain speak, nobody ever uses those verbs. We get on or off. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't they also say "Mind the gap", which also seems likely to be confusing to nonnative speakers? ("Watch your step" would be the corresponding warning in AmE, I guess—just as confusing to anyone unfamiliar with the idiom.) The only thing I regularly mind is my manners. Deor (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mind the gap" wouldn't be confusing to Norwegian speakers - the Oslo Metro have introduced the word "gæpp", which is how "gap" would be spelled in Norwegian, in a campaign, and in in written warnings next to the doors. [6] [7] Thankfully, they haven't started using it in spoken announcements, though. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mind the gap" is much more precise than "watch your step" and, in this case, that precision is useful. "The gap" refers to the gap between the platform and the train, which can sometimes be quite large (especially at stations with curved platforms). They only give the warning at stations where there is a significant gap. I don't think "mind the gap" is really an idiom, it says precisely what it means. --Tango (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mind the gap" sounds very British, and wouldn't be used in the USA, as it would probably evoke bewilderment. "Watch your step" is what they would likely say here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the latest version goes: "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform" and as Tango says, is used where there is a curved platform and a big gap between the end doors of each car and terra firma. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That fuller explanation would make sense even to us Americans, although if the gap had been sufficiently wide to present a potential hazard, the gap would probably be filled in, to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to imagine a curved, tubular tunnel with a platform on one side and the rails on the other. The train runs a few inches from the far wall[8][9]. There is no way of filling in the gap without re-boring the tunnel and straightening it. As trains don't do corners very well (especially in tunnels), it would mean changing the course of the tunnel for hundreds of metres. It would cost billions and mean years of travel disruption (up to 4 million passengers a day use the Tube[10]). Therefore, we have an announcement. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I live in Boston, one of the older cities in the United States, with curved tracks and inevitable gaps between the train and platform, just like London. I swear I heard the train conductor say the other day in his Boston accent, "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform". This is not a standard, recorded announcement, and it isn't made every time, but it is understandable enough for Americans. Marco polo (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it may "sound funny" and there may be other phrases to use but we English all understand it and it works fine for us. As usual some people find things outside their experience "funny" but that qualifies the person more than the topic. 'Alight', 'Alight here', 'Do not alight when the vehicle is moving' and other variations have a long and well understood usage in the UK and refers to the leaving of transport vehicles. It is one of the innumerable differences in the English English and American English vocabularies. "Mind the gap" is a pretty outdated and little-used warning in my experience, I can't remember the last time I heard it on the London Underground. It might be needed in some older stations but a very few, and then only maybe. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a recorded announcement at Bank Station on the Central Line, every time th doors open. Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Alight" is a very formal word, but I suspect it is used because there isn't an equivalent of middling formality. In normal speech, we would say 'get off' or 'get out', but those feel too colloquial for an announcement. (We don't "exit" a train in the UK).

And I saw "Mind the gap" painted on the platform last week (not a spoken announcement, I admit). It wasn't in London: I was going from Yorkshire to Edinburgh. It was probably at my local station. --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a memorable enough phrase that you can buy a "Mind the gap" T-shirt. Astronaut (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And other garments [11]:-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And it's not just curved platforms. The suburban station I use has straight platforms but occasionally the bottom of the train's door is about 0.5 m higher then the platform. In those cases, we sometimes get a "mind the gap" announcement. Astronaut (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks one and all for your input; an email will be on its way to City Hall soon. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jan Nowak-Jeziorański, a member of Polish Resistance who was shuttling between Warsaw and London during World War II, almost got killed when he was being smuggled inside a bomb bay of a British bomber and misunderstood a sign reading "Do not alight while the engine is running"; he thought it meant "do not smoke while the engine is running". — Kpalion^(talk) 13:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! We learn something new every day. What we see above is the world's very first "Polish joke". :b ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Kage Tora asked me about details of this story on my talk page, but I thought others might benefit from the answer too, even if it's off-topic here. Nowak-Jeziorański was carrying intelligence information from German-occupied Poland to the Polish government-in-exile and the British government. As you can imagine, it was not an easy task. He left Poland concealed in the coal storage of a Swedish cargo ship going from Gdynia to Malmö. From Sweden, he needed to make his way to Britain. At that time, Stockholm was one of the main battlegrounds for intelligence agents of all belligerent countries in Europe. They had to hide their true identities not only from each other, but also from Swedish authorities. Their presence violated Swedish neutrality, so if caught, they could spend the rest of the war in a Swedish internment camp. Britain moved their spies in and out of Sweden by a Mosquito bomber whose bomb bay had been converted into a makeshift passenger cabin (hence the "do not alight" sign inside). It could carry only one passenger at a time, so Nowak had to wait several weeks for his turn until he was transported across German-occupied Norway to Scotland. I recommend reading the whole of his fascinating book: Nowak, Jan (1982). Courier from Warsaw. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 0814317251. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is it?

President's Day or Presidents' Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.50.226 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the holiday is officially called "[George] Washington's Birthday" there is no official preference of one or the other. "Presidents Day" and "Presidents' Day" are more commonly used than "Washington's Birthday", and as a result both are considered to be correct by most dictionaries and style manuals. "President's Day" is not frowned upon but not endorsed either (and therefore is considered the "least correct"), as the apostrophe's placement refers to one person rather than a group of people. See Washington's Birthday for more information. Xenon54 / talk / 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

...or see the ultimate source, the relevant statute, 5 USC 6103—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese vowel letters with tilde

Is the Portuguese letter “õ” always part of the ending “-ões”? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search for your question, and the second result was Columbus was 100% Portuguese-- based exclusively on original documents, which shows that letter in other positions, although in Portuguese which is centuries old. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any words in modern Portuguese, where the letter “õ” is not part of the ending “-ões”? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a clear statement of the answer, in õ, pt:õ or Portuguese orthography. But the last of these, in section Nasal vowels and diphthongs seems to say that "õ" is used only in the digraph "õe". However, that digraph is not used solely in the ending "-ões": there is for example the word põe. --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Wavelength's link is pure crackpottery and cannot be taken as reliable evidence about the use of ‹õ› in Portuguese of any age. +Angr 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about pt:wikt:põe and its compunds pt:wikt:compõe, pt:wikt:depõe, pt:wikt:dispõe, pt:wikt:expõe, pt:wikt:impõe, pt:wikt:opõe, pt:wikt:propõe, pt:wikt:supõe, and pt:wikt:transpõe. [12] -- Wavelength (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[None of the links from "compõe" to "transpõe" led to existent pages when I tried them. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)]

Also, the third-person plural present indicative active ends in "õem". -- Wavelength (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Using us vs. we

What do you think is more correct: "...that we Americans now..." or "...that us Americans now..."?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably "we", but it's hard to tell without a longer extract. Should "now" be "know"? If so it's almost certainly "we", as it's (part of) the subject of the verb). "Us" in this sort of context is fairly common in informal speech, though. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this isn't directly Wikipedia related (before someone jumps down my throat about not maintaining a global view *rolls eyes*): There is little doubt that we Americans now live in a luxurious environment, as compared to most of the rest of the world. I changed it from "us" to "we", and I think that I'm happy with that, but I wanted to see what others said about it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "we" is undoubtedly the right word in that sentence, being part of the subject of "live". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I appreciate it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that you should use the same word that you would use if "Americans" was omitted. In this case that's "we". --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, February 18, 2010.

On the other hand, the objective case is used in What do foreigners think of us? and therefore in What do foreigners think of us Americans?

(I definitely do not wish to promote national stereotyping.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)