Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 December 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< December 11 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 13 >
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.


Contents


[edit] December 12

[edit] A general comment and suggestion

As I have noticed in WP articles and entrees (by the way, does WP have an alphabetical list of entrees?) proper nouns, mostly persons and places, do not have phonetic representation (and this is a common negative feature in many encyclopedia); i.e. you cannot know how such names as Bagehot (Eng.), Chantilly (Fr.), Feuerbach (Ger.), Guerrazzi (It.) and Xerxes (Gr. from Per.) are pronounced by their native users. If anyone on the WP Language Reference Desk tries to provide this phonetic equivalent for entrees related to his/her mother tongue, it will be an achievement for both WP and its users. Please let me know what you think. --Omidinist (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

An alphabetical list of all pages on Wikipedia can be found at Special:Allpages.
Wikipedia uses the International Phonetic Alphabet for pronunciation guides. A couple of the articles you listed - Walter Bagehot and Xerxes I of Persia - do indeed have IPA pronunciations listed. It would be nice if all articles on foreign or obscure names or words had IPA pronunciation guides, but they unfortunately can only appear if someone adds them - if you're familiar with IPA and would like to add some that would certainly be appreciated. If there are any specific articles you wish to have an IPA guide added to, please list them here, and it's quite possible someone who knows IPA and the proper pronunciations will wander by and add them. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Many articles do contain phonetic representations. As to those which do not, I would say an obstacle that prevents people from adding phonetic representations is that, while the only objective way of representing the pronunciation is to use IPA, many people complain that they can't read IPA. Instead, they want "English" representations as found in a traveler's phrasebook. Here the problem comes - chances are that your "English" is different from mine. By the way, yes, there is an alphabetical list of entries: Wikipedia:Quick index. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a list of entrees but it does have a small list of hors d'oeuvres. (Sorry! I couldn't resist.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, don't be sorry Adam. I am sorry for the wrong spelling. --Omidinist (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with the IPA is that while I can read it (just about and with a crib), I cannot write it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility is adding audio files. I have started a sub-project within the UK Geography Wikiproject to provide sound files containing the standard British English (Received Pronunciation) pronunciation of as many British place names as possible. These are then linked in the first sentence of the relevant article, and can be listened to with one click. I recommend this approach, as it is relatively straightforward to produce the sound files and brings an immediacy and clarity that IPA, for all its benefits, lacks for the casual user. In fact, you could make any requests for British names here at the talk page if you wish. The main issue (not really a problem) is that the Ogg Vorbis file format must be used, rather than a more accessible format such as mp3. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job you have done, Hassocks5489. I wish it could be done for each and every proper noun in WP. And then, thanks for all comments. Omidinist (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter head

Hi, I am German and I'd like to know how to formally address somebody in a letter head. My first try is "Dear Sir or Madam", so you can see which direction I am heading. Thanks for any helpful suggestion. -- 217.232.38.106 (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dear Sir or Madam" works perfectly well in a formal letter which is sent to an unknown individual (probably in an organisation). The corresponding formula at the end is "Yours faithfully". SaundersW (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're writing to an organisation and don't even have a specific job title to address then you can use "Dear Sirs" but if you're addressing a letter to a specific job title like "Head of ..." then "Dear Sir or Madam" or "Dear Sir/Madam" is standard.86.143.33.38 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm wiki sneakily logged me out. Anyway above comment was me. TheMathemagician (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this is usually called the salutation or greeting of a letter. Letterhead is another name for headed paper, that is, stationery with the name and address of the person or organisation already printed on it. Both articles contain references if you wish to learn more. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your answers. -- 217.232.38.106 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if you know the gender of the person you are addressing, then you should use either "Dear Sir" or "Dear Madam", as the person might be offended if you know their name but find their gender ambiguous. Also, "Yours faithfully" sounds very old-fashioned to my American ears, though it would be excused of a foreigner. (It may be normal in the United Kingdom.) The standard formula before the signature in the United States is "Sincerely". Marco polo (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The rule here (in the UK) is (or was. Maybe I am just old!) that with "Dear Sir" one uses "Yours faithully" and with "Dear Mr Polo" one uses "Yours sincerely". However formal letters are probably in decline here, and the rules may fall into disuse. SaundersW (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in my twenties and I was taught at school (UK) that it's Yours Faithfully if you don't know their name and Yours Sincerely if you do. My office uses Kind Regards for all variations though, which is also acceptable. MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dear Sir or Madam" is perfectly acceptable for a formal letter, although somewhat old-fashioned. "To Whom It May Concern" is probably more common. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking straight in my last comment. If you know the name of the person being addressed, then you wouldn't use "Dear Madam" or "Dear Sir", you'd use "Dear Ms. X" or "Dear Mr. X". I am not so young myself, but in the United States we would sign the letter in either case with just "Sincerely," followed by your signature. "To Whom It May Concern" is an acceptable way to begin a letter if you don't particularly care about the impression you make. To my ears, it has a cold, impersonal, offhand tone. If you are merely informing the recipient of the letter of something, then "To Whom It May Concern" would be okay. However, if the letter is asking for something, then "Dear Madam or Sir" is more engaging and probably more effective (if still formal). Marco polo (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
To agree with Marco, if you know the name of the person, then "Dear Mr X" (and in the UK, because the abbreviation ends with the last letter of the word abbreviated you don't need a full stop, period, or whatever you might call it!) Mrs X, Dr X or whatever and end with "Yours sincerely". If you have no idea who will read it, but it is a particular person such as the personnel director, or a notional person in charge of complaints, then "Dear Sir or Madam" is a good start, ending with "yours faithfully". If you are writing an open letter such as a reference which the bearer can show to many people, then "To whom it may concern" would be appropriate. In any case you can see that there are regional or national variations which will make a slight deviation from any "norm" or "rule" not very visible. SaundersW (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that you might want to write the salutation and sign-off by hand rather than typing them. I believe it is good practice, if you are typing or word processing a letter, to leave gaps at the beginning and end of the letter, where the "Dear Sir/Madam/Mr or Mrs Whoever" and "Yours faithfully/sincerely" would go, print off the letter and then write them in by hand. This adds a personal touch. You would also have your name printed at the bottom, below where your signature goes. --Richardrj talk email 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese help

What does "私は永久にあなたとありたいと思う" mean? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"I wanna be with you, forever".--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Candy-Panda (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But the Japanese sentence is grammatically wrong. It must be “私は永久にあなたと(一緒に)いたいと思う。”. More precisely, it is “I think I wanna be with you forever”. Oda Mari (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we need いる for human beings ... but could that be colloquial? I've no idea.--K.C. Tang (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
いる is always used for human beings, animals, whoever/whichever has his/her/its mind and will, including even ghosts! In other words, いる is used for something/body alive. So the (dead) body is ある, and we don't use いる for plants. We never use ある for human beings. Oda Mari (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I remember exceptions. I think, therefore I am is “我思う、ゆえに我あり” and it's an established translation. And “I'd rather be honest” can be both “わたしは正直でありたい” and “わたしは正直でいたい”. These ありたい are literally usage. Oda Mari (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense, as ある seemed to be used for both the animate and the inanimate in Classical Japanese. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But it is impossible to use “ある” in “I wanna be with you forever”. Unnatural and laughable. Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, 「ある」 was used in Classical Japanese for people, so if the OP is quoting from the 源氏物語 or something, it would be correct. The only problem is, 「私」 was not used then, so, as Oda Mari says, the sentence is comical.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorge / Ravine / Rift / Canyon etc.

What is the right word to use when describing a very narrow "chasm/passage" that forms up in the mountains between higher points and peaks? I have tried to find out by searching the words but all words always just link to "valley", "Dale", "Vale" and such, which is more down in the flat-land, and much larger than what i am after so i am a bit confused, no longer knowing which word is right to use where exactly when there is so many words meaning almost the same...

Imagine a place high up in the mountains where a passage forms between two peaks or high-points, (or even between two mountain walls could be a possibility) and it is so narrow that one has actually built a bridge from side to side to cross. what is this passage below correctly called?

Though, it might not necessarily be THAT narrow, it might be a quite long bridge you know, considering its location.

gorge, ravine, rift, canyon, chasm etc.?

I find it hard to seperate these words and its meanings from one another...

85.164.187.94 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a way through, it is called a pass. --Lgriot (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

what if there is NOT a way through then? if its rocky etc. that one cant walk there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.187.94 (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't use george, canyon or ravine, since they are created by a stream or river. Chasm or rift seem to be asociated with tectonic activity. What you are describing was simply not elevated (by chance) as high as the two peaks next to it. So I am not sure there is a name in English for that. Anyone else got an idea? I can only think of "impactical pass" --Lgriot (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The low-lying region between two peaks is a saddle. [1] Hooray! My land navigation training is applicable to civilian uses. EvilCouch (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Chasm" is the generic term for such a thing (AHD: A deep, steep-sided opening in the earth's surface; an abyss or gorge.). A "gorge" is defined in some dictionaries as what you want, such as Webster's 1913. I can't say that the word "gorge" calls to mind a "mountain defile", but it does mean that. It's from "throat", you know, so its etymology implies a narrow passage more than it does an abyss. I'm going with "gorge". --Milkbreath (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Our article on topographic prominence calls such a point a col. —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What gets exhumed?

As I understand the terms in [US] English: a grave is exhumed; buried remains are disinterred. Is this usage correct? NB: I'd initially posted this query on the Talk page of the article on Burial, but have gotten no response there. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to a couple of on-line dictionaries disinter means to remove remains from a grave. This definition is exactly the same as exhume. My understanding is that a grave is opened to exhume or disinter the body or remains therein. Richard Avery (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Richard Avery that there is no distinction between exhume and disinter. In both cases it is the body/remains which is the object of the verb. Graves cannot be exhumed.TheMathemagician (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Chambers Dictionary, 1983 ed., says "Exhume, verb transitive, to take out of the ground or place of burial: to disinter: to bring to light." DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And "Disinter, verb transitive, to take out of the earth, from a grave, or from obscurity." DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that exhume is specific to graves. Disinter can be applied to a grave, or simply somewhere where remains have been interred (buried). Thus exhume is a subset of disinter. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative (if you're into obscure antonyms), 'exter' has been used in print and is thus officially a word. Algebraist 06:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Discworld novels use 'inhume' to refer to the activities of style-conscious assassins as being somewhat classier than 'murder'.195.173.41.66 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaettu maa

What does the Finnish title of North and South exactly mean? --KnightMove (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Divided land. ›mysid (☎∆) 12:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be "Jättää Maa" instead? Saukkomies 17:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just answered my own kuusamus. I was thinking the word would have been "Jättää", meaning "leave or move", but it takes the declined form of the word "Jakaa", which means "to divide". Oops! Thus "Jakaa" declines to "Jake-, and then the passive past participles case ending "-ttu" is added to the end of the word, making it translate into meaning "someone or something has divided...". When the "-ttu" is added to the end of the word "Jake-", the second syllable is closed at the end by the first "t" in "-ttu". This makes it so that the hard "k" in "Jake-" is dropped. So instead of the word turning out to be "Jakettu", the "k" is dropped because of the closed second syllable of "-ket-", so the word becomes "Jaettu" instead. The word "Maa" is pretty straightforward, since it simply means "land" or "world". Thus, when refering to the title of the movie "North and South" that is about the American Civil War, the Finnish translation of the title would literally be "the divided land" (implying that someone divided the land, not that the land divided itself), or something like that... I'm just writing all of this to give people an idea of how the fascinating Finnish language works! Saukkomies 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, question=kysymys, not kuusamus :-) ›mysid (☎∆) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
...Jesus, are there any second-language Finnish speakers in the world?? ;) -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jaettu maa" means "the divided land". End of story. There are second-language Finnish speakers, but all of them live in Finland. No one has ever learned Finnish as a foreign language for any other reason than needing to understand what the people in their new homeland talk about. From my experience, adult immigrants quickly grasp enough of the language to make themselves understood, but make very minor grammatical mistakes in every sentence. They also have a very distinct non-Finnish accent. Their children speak perfect Finnish. Some Finnish people immediately switch to English when realising they are speaking with an immigrant, but I make it a point never to do that unless the addressee clearly has difficulties understanding me. It is insulting to the immigrants to do it otherwise. I personally find it annoying when Swedes or Germans switch to English when I'm trying to talk to them in their native language. JIP | Talk 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"No one has ever learned Finnish as a foreign language for any other reason than needing to understand what the people in their new homeland talk about"... that's a little over-stated, JIP. J. R. R. Tolkien said he taught himself Finnish so that he could read Elias Lönnrot's Kalevala in the original. (He later partly based his Elvish language Quenya on it, so I guess there may well be Tolkien fans who have studied Finnish for that reason.) Xn4 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Count me as one second-language Finnish speaker who does not live in Finland. Okay, well I lived in Finland for a couple of years back in the late 1970s, but other than that I've lived in the Unites States. I currently live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula among many Finnish Americans (although I myself am not of Finnish ancestry), and Finnish is taught in some of the schools here as a second language, including Finlandia University in Hancock, Michigan, which is the town where I live. It is true that I make many mistakes when speaking Finnish (such as the very bad mistake of writing Kuusamus instead of Kysymys), and I undoubtedly have a wretched accent when I speak Finnish, but I find that if I get talking in it for a while I am able to remember things better and so it goes. One of the benefits of living where I do is that I occasionally get to practice my Finnish on some of the old-timer Finns who still speak it as their mother tongue. There's also a weekly (Sunday morning) local television show that has been on the air since March 27, 1962, and is done partly in Finnish called "Suomi Kutsuu", or "Finland Calling". It is hosted by Carl Pellonpaa, and originates from the station of WLUC-TV in the town of Negaunee, Michigan. Pellonpaa invites guests to his show, often visitors to the area from Finland, and speaks to them in Finnish. He also plays old timey Finnish polkas while showing home videos from his many visits to Finland. So I hope that this has settled the question of there not being anyone outside of Finland who is second language speakers of Finnish. It says in your Wiki profile, JIP, that you are an expert in Finnish Culture, so maybe as part of that it would be good to learn about the Finnish culture in America... Just a friendly suggestion. Saukkomies 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)