Talk:Molde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By all existing standards, Molde is a city, not a town. English definition (precense of cathedral) is satisfied, US and Norwegian definitions (a status thing) are also satisfied, so please don't change it back to town.

[edit] It is a city

In the US there are no guidelines as to whether a place is a city or not. It is all about what it is agreed upon, what the town/city council wishes, and what "looks good" on the sign. In Britain, it automatically becomes a city if a bishop resides there.

Norwegian, historically being a rural society, have fewer terms for these things than does English. Norwegian BY means both "city" and "town", whereas TETTSTED is a modern, inaccurate term that translates both "town", "village" and "hamlet" in English.

Locations like Molde, Bergen and Larvik are best translated CITY, while Otta, Kløfta and Drøbak will be classified as TOWNS.

[edit] Series

Regarding 'Series of fire', it's the English grammar I'm thinking of. As far as I know, 'series of' always has to be followed by the plural form of a noun. It might also be a good idea to change 'destroying' to 'destroyed' for correct grammar.

--Cunningpal 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Another word I would question is 'struck', past of 'strike'. We 'strike' a match, to produce a flame by friction, but striking a fire from a bomb doesn't seem to be the right use of the word. Actually, "Strike the fire" (a campfire) means to put it out.

Here is how I would write the sentence. I won't put it in the article, but leave it to you to modify as you want to. 'Air raid' doesn't need a hyphen. Do you use www.onelook.com as a dictionary source? It's a good site.

A second fire, or rather, series of fires, ignited during German air raids in April and May of 1940, destroyed about two thirds of the city.

Cunningpal


Cunningpal! You might be entirely right, or partly wrong. The debate is seething among my colleagues in the department, but no consensus yet! Some advocate that the plural form of "series of fire" IS "series of fire", since series is intrinsically plural (i.e. “one series” – “two series”). Also, this follows the pattern of “brother in arms” – “brothers in arms”, and “one kind of ice cream” – “two kinds of ice cream” (and not “ice creams”). Or, according to the opposition, since Molde was bombed for two weeks, there surely must have been more than ONE fire, hence “series of fires”. Verdict is pending.

Regarding strike/struck there seems to more of an agreement that a fire CAN strike from an incendiary bomb, just like fire can strike like a match, or from a bolt of lightning. Furthermore – “struck” in this sense does not necessarily refer to the act of striking two surfaces, but “inflicted upon”, like “Many Californian towns fire-stricken after the great bushfire”, or “Fire struck one of Seattle's monorail trains outside…” (headlines on the news)

As for you other suggestions – they will be corrected! Thank you

--Sparviere 14:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look up 'series' in the Encarta English Dictionary on the Web. It gives some excellent examples and an explanation of 'series' in its singular and plural use.

I can guarantee that no literate person whose mother tongue is English would follow 'series of' with a singular noun. 'Series of fire' is just not correct English as it is spoken and written.

Cunningpal 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I AM literate, and DO have English as my native tongue, but I am still not quite convinced. However, since you seem certain, and I am not, it is hereby settled, and the necessary changes will be performed. Thanks for following up! --Sparviere 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)