Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 July 31

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.

< July 30	Language desk archive	August 1 >

Indexes or Indices?

I used the word "indexes" as the plural of "index" in TeX font metric. A friend of mine is adamant that the plural, in American English at least, is "indices", and that "indexes" is a grotesque linguistic abortion, an offense to the beauty of the (American) English tongue. Who's right? grendel|khan 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indexes" is a perfectly acceptable spelling according to most current sources; "indices" is certainly the older term, but it seems that "indexes" is gaining acceptance and is usually listed first in (for example) the American Heritage Dictionary , Webster's, and the OED. Ziggurat 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that indices is the correct plural form of index. --69.138.61.168 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct. I tend to use "indexes" when conversing with an unsophisticated audience which may be unfamiliar with the plural "indices", unless I can define it in the sentence, such as "I use either index A or index B, as both indices are approximately equivalent". StuRat 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "indices" has more "beauty" than "indexes", it gets its beauty from Latin, not from English. --Ptcamn 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is listed in the dictionary (especially Webster's) does not mean it is correct; it just means people have said it enough for the dictionary to print it. A good example of this would be the word 'disinterested'. --69.138.61.168 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say prescription, I say description - battles over 'correct' English that fight against what people actually use are always losing battles. Ziggurat 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Manual of Style recommends "indexes" in bibliographical contexts, and "indices" in mathematical and scientific contexts. It's the same with "formulas" and "formulae", and there are no doubt other examples. There is a definite shift away from Latin plural formations, which can now appear pedantic in everyday speech.--Shantavira 07:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that the latter would include computer-science/algorithm contexts, then, and that it should be the Latin-ish form in this instance. grendel|khan 08:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a computer scientist turned linguist, and hence someone who pays attention to such things, I find that computer scientists generally prefer the more “educated” plural forms. As well as the Latinate plurals such as forum~fora, formula~formulæ, and your index~indices, there are the Greek plurals like scheme~schemata and taxon~taxa, the fake-Latin Unix~Unices and Twenex~Twenices, fake-Germanic box~boxen, and so forth. The fake or “silly” plurals are considered humorous, and are occasionally dropped into serious CS papers to lighten the mood a bit, particularly after using one of the formal plurals. They’re much more common in online fora, oral presentations, and colloquial conversation. However, some plurals are more localized – and hence marginalized – than others. I note that in other disciplines, e.g. biology and chemistry, the use of the “educated” plurals is declining, whereas it is as strong as ever or even increasing in CS. I leave the sociolinguistic explanation for these phenomena as an exercise for the reader. — Jéioosh 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a mathematician, my experience has been that indices is universally used for the, well, indices in

x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n}

;

\delta _{ij}

; or

g_{i}^{j}

, for example. But we still look in the back of math books for the indexes. (Sorry for not knowing how to do the above in HTML.) Tesseran 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who use indices are probably the same people who use plural verb forms with data. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that, Zoel. Indices is still a very widely used plural for index, whereas very few people use a plural verb to agree with data. In fact, I can't name a single one. JackofOz 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your data are incorrect. --LarryMac 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"data are" gets over 109 million hits on Google, though some of them don't really qualify (as in some of the points of data are ...). User:Zoe|(talk) 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When taking statistics, I was thrown a little when someone said "the data are". I'd always used 'is', but since it's a mass noun it makes sense. --69.138.61.168 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the old rule would apply, when you refer to members of the group, use "are", but if referring to the group collectively, use "is". So, we get "the points of data are" and "the data is", just like "the members of the class are" and "the class is". StuRat 05:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that data was originally a plural noun from Latin datum. The discomfort associated with irregular plurals in English has led to people reanalyzing it as a mass noun that can take singular agreement. — Jéioosh 03:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of following text in Chinese, German and Hindi language

Dear Sir,

         PLease help me translating the following text in chinese, German and Hindi Language.

CAUTION

Exposure of material to light and/or humidity may result in degraded performance. Material must be predried as per our recommendation. For additional information, consult the Material Safety Data Sheet for this product.

German (roughly; not word per word, but by meaning; some more info would have been nice (what materiel etc.)): Vorsicht! Licht und/oder Feuchtigkeit können zu verminderter Leistung führen. Das Material muss, wie von uns empfohlen, vorgetrocknet werden. Weitere Informationen entnehmen Sie bitte den Sicherheitshinweisen für dieses Produkt. Lectonar 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subtlety in the use of commas. The combination of "must" and "recommendation" suggests that the intended meaning is: must be predried in the way we specified in our recommendation. To express this, the commas around wie von uns empfohlen must be removed.--gwaihir 11:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why would one put in the as per our recommendation then (especially the recommendation irks me here, because, IMHO, that implies that you're not strictly obliged to do it) , and not just leave it as Material must be predried´(in a certain way)? Lectonar 11:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Das Material muss auf die von uns empfohlene Weise vorgetrocknet werden? User:Angr 12:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, nice and easy does the trick; but I must confess that I would like to know about which material we're talking here. Lectonar 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good too. Also, as a professional technical translator, I certainly hope our customers don't get wind of the fact that you can get translations for free at the Wikipedia reference desk. User:Angr 12:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure there is (or was) a page where you could get payment for writing/bettering an article (spent 10 minutes searching, didn't find it); perhaps we should think about something like that here, too. Lectonar 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were referring to the Bounty Board--Estrellador* 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler vs Stalin, with capes.

I suppose it has a certain wacky charm when I don't know what it says, but can someone translate the (ostensibly) Russian dialogue from in this comic? grendel|khan 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler: Is this the best you can do?

Stalin: I had offered you friendship, Adolf, but you chose to start a war. I am here now to destroy you.

Hitler: Caucasian Untermensch! Now I am at the height of my Power!

The full comic, with translations, can be found here. --Ptcamn 09:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's even more than I had hoped for. Thanks! grendel|khan 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammaticality judgement: "I didn’t expect your mother to like the picture; but I did you."

I would request English native speakers to express there judgement
about the grammaticality of the sentence:
"I didn’t expect your mother to like the picture; but I did you."
I find it pretty odd, but I am not a native speaker.Thanks

Vineet Chaitanya

It's not so much ungrammatical as difficult to understand (a bit like a garden path sentence). At least, I don't think it's ungrammatical. Certainly odd in any case. --Ptcamn 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a particularly convoluted ellipsis. --π! 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the speaker didn't expect the mother to like the picture and had sex with the person s/he's speaking to. It's a sentence that I wouldn't blink at if I heard it spoken, but if I were correcting someone's written work I'd suggest they change it.--Anchoress 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture to say this construction is ungrammatical. I just don't think the verb "do" can substitute for a transitive verb like that. Consider the parallel, but simpler construction: "I didn't eat carrots, but I did celery." That just sounds wrong. The verb "do" can substitute for a transitive verb together with its object (for example, "I didn't eat carrots, but you did") but it really cannot substitute for a transitive verb alone, to be used with a different object. --Mathew5000 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the ellipsis comes in - while it may inherently break the rules of grammar, it's often okay to omit words for poetic effect. "I didn't eat carrots, but I did celery." is just a way of saying "I didn't eat carrots, but I did [eat] celery." --π! 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that distinction Mathew? It sounds fine to me. I dont like golf, but I do tennis. Jameswilson?

I agree with Jameswilson. Mathew's example doesn't "inherently break the rules of grammar" at all. --Ptcamn 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still sounds wrong to me (the golf sentence as well) but if they sound okay to other native speakers I won't press the point. --Mathew5000 04:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I love people who write sentences like these. Let's take a look at the sentence.

I didn’t expect your mother to like the picture; but I did you.

1. "I didn't expect your mother to like the picture; " - This is gramatically perfect, and an excellent use of semicolin if i might add.

I - Subject, did - helping verb, not - negative modifier, expect - main verb, your - pronoun, mother - indirect object, to - conjunction, like - verb, the - article, picture - direct object.

2. "but I did you." - This is where the sentence starts to break down.

but - coordinating conjunction, I - subject, did - helping verb, you - pronoun.

Notice the lack of a proper verb or direct object in this sentence. That is the problem. To correct this, one would write the sentence like this:

"I didn’t expect your mother to like the picture; but I did expect you to like the picture."

"I didn’t expect your mother to like the picture; but I did expect you to like it."

"I didn’t expect your mother to like the picture; I did expect you to like it." - Since you are using a semicolin, you do not actually need a coordinating conjunction.

--69.138.61.168 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "I didn’t expect your mother to like the picture, but I did expect you to". That may be technically ungrammatical (because to is only one part of the infinitive to understand), but it's unambiguous, something the original question is not (even if it is grammatically ok). Grammar is important, but comprehensibility and communication should not always be sacrificed on its altar. JackofOz 05:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whose definition of "technically ungrammatical" you're using, but by the one used by actual professional linguists, using "to" without a following verb is a-okay. --Ptcamn 05:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you are then. I know a thing or two about words, but I'm not an "actual professional linguist", so I was quite prepared for them to jump on my suggestion, hence the qualification. Cheers JackofOz 06:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'to' is a particle used to indicate the verb after it is an infinitive. While not technically grammtically correct, you can use it to 'infer' an infinite statement after it. Leaving just 'to' is similar to saying

"She is not as adept at Soccer as I."

What the writer really means is "She is not as adept at Soccer as I am adept at Soccer." However, this is very unwieldy and repetitive, although technically correct. So, you would shorten it to the first statement and 'infer' the rest of the sentence.--69.138.61.168 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about things like "She is as tall as me."? That can hardly expand to the ungrammatical **"She is as tall as me am tall." --Ptcamn 14:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purists would say that the sentence "She is as tall as me" is grammatically wrong. Most copyeditors would change the sentence, in all but the most casual of writing, to "She is as tall as I" (or perhaps "She is as tall as I am"). --Mathew5000 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purists are wrong. You can say "This sentence is horrible" (a subjective judgement), you can say "You should never use sentences like this", but you can't say it's grammatically wrong. Grammaticality is testable, and it turns out that this sentence is grammatical. --Ptcamn 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...another perfectly good discussion turned into a prescriptivist/descriptivist fray.--Philosofinch 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"She is as tall as me" indeed would be ungrammitical, as 'me' is in the third person, while the speaker is talking about themselves, which would require the first person 'I'.

That's not quite the right reason. "Me" is every bit as much in the first person as "I". But "me" is in the objective case, whereas what we need here is the nominative case "I", because what follows "as" is "I (am)". JackofOz 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were going to be completely technical about it, you'd say "She is not as tall as I am tall."

That being said, I have found that very grammattically correct sentences are not of much use outside of of an academic or linguistic endeavor. In everyday speech, it makes it sound as if you are an android. See Data (Star Trek). --69.138.61.168 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just "She is my height?" Neon Merlin 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German profanity question

How do I say something like "oh, fuck it" in German (as profanity, not regarding sexual intercourse)? I know of the words "scheiße" and "verdammt" but I need a profane verb. Not necessarily so strong as "fuck" but still something not to be said in normal conversation. JIP | Talk 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think translating it literally is necessary: scheiße sounds alright on its own (well, it doesn't, but you know what I mean!) - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the "it" is there for a reason (i.e. there's something to figuratively "fuck") I think "ach scheiß drauf" (oh shit on it) or "so eine verdammte Scheiße" (such a damned shit) are fitting translations. The first fails your request to be unsuitable for normal conversation, I think, so I'd go for the second. —da Pete (ばか) 17:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the two above and would add that German profanity doesn't pack the same emotional wallop as English profanity. There's nothing you can't say on television, for example. User:Angr 17:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No profane verbs, but I'm quite fond of "Ach! du liebe scheisse!" Apologies for inevitable mis-spelling. --Dweller 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really need a profane verb. For example, how can I say "fuck Smith and his job" in German? The best I have come up with is "scheiß Smith und seiner Job". Will that do, or is it ungrammatical? JIP | Talk 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German doesn't have really profane verbs. I'd say "Scheiß auf Smith und auf seinen Job", but that's using Scheiß as a noun, and it's nowhere near as vulgar as the English. User:Angr 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use 'fuck' as it is, and say "Fuck auf Smith und auf seinen Job"? Wouldn't they understand? --69.138.61.168 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German is one of the few languages I haven't learnt (yeah, right) but I'm sure I've read certain lurid continental publications where the character says "ficke mich", meaning "fuck me". That suggests there is a recognised German verb for this. JackofOz 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It exists; but it is as User:Angr said: it doesn't pack he same wallop as its English equivalent...if you want to target an individual, you could always try the good old Arschloch (asshole). Lectonar 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as 'fuck' said by whom? In some countries for some people the word isn't all that profane, just part of everyday conversation. Billy Connolly, for example, uses the word all the time, without intending any offence. At the other extreme there's the US, where it is (I believe) always very rude, and I suppose you mean that. Of course German has its fair share of profanities, like "leck mich am Arsch" (lick my arse), but I can indeed not find one that is the equivalent of "fuck" used in this sense. "Ficken" is, I believe, only used in the original sexual sense. DirkvdM 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as we've got the nice Fick dich ins Knie, (Go fuck your knee, in the sense of 'shove off'), which would be slightly awkward to do, and doesn't seem only sexual. :) Lectonar 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

etymology of the word for "Asia" in Asian languages

in Asia we have the etymology of the word used in European language, but what word is used for the continent in the major Asian languages like Chinese or Japanese and their etymologies?--Sonjaaa 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In a somewhat perverse answer to your question, Japanese uses アジア ajia, which is derived from French (IIRC). There’s no [ʒ] in Japanese so it became something like [dʒ] instead. The rarely used kanji are 亜細亜 a-ji-a, but they are only phonetic and have no meaning in this word. The initial kanji 亜 a is used in abbreviations and headlinese, such as 東南亜 tōnan a “Southeast Asia”. The continent as a whole is called アジア大陸 ajia tairiku “Asia(n) continent”.— Jéioosh 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese does actually have a [ʒ] (more accurately [ʑ], but they're roughly the same thing). The sound romanized as j only sounds like [dʒ] at the beginnings of words, and after n. --Ptcamn 00:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Chinese (亚洲, Yazhou) Malay (Asia) and Thai (เอเชีย, Esia). It seems to be a European concept. :) Henry ^Flower 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Orientalism - it wouldn't surprise me at all that most languages of the area take the word from European (Akkadian, originally?), as the tendency to group vast swathes of geopolitically distinct areas together is as well. Other languages: Bahasa Indonesia 'Asia', Tagalog 'Asya', Tok Pisin 'Asia', Sundanese 'Asia', Min Nan 'A-chiu', Korean '아시아' (roughly 'Asia' :) ... Ziggurat 22:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Oryema - Makambo

What language is Geoffrey Oryema's song "Makambo" in? Swahili, Acholi, or something else? I find it kind of pathetic that, having taken some Swahili years ago, I can't even tell… The Jade Knight 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]