Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< September 17 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 19 >
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] September 18

[edit] stabilization of automatic translation

Assume the following English sentence:

   The cat sat on the mat.

take that English and use an automatic translation tool to translate it into Spanish.

   El gato se sentó en la estera.

take that auto-translated Spanish and translate it back to English using the same tool.

Repeat this process until the result stabilizes, (remains the same no matter how many times you apply the translation tool).

Repeat this translation process using increasingly more elaborate phrases, up to and including entire chapters from well-known books. See how many passages eventually "stabilize". Stable passages can be dubbed automatic-translation-proof passages.

Is there a website or resource out there where someone has done this? I'm wondering what is the largest repository of "automatic translation proof" passages. dr.ef.tymac 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting concept that just cost me half an hour of playing around with Babel Fish. Any such repository, if one exists, would only apply to the one translation tool used to test those phrases. Our article on machine translation lists four different approaches that can be used for machine translation, and each approach will almost certainly give different results. A sentence that is "stable" for one translation tool might not be stable on another. Also, there are likely to be many more sentences that cannot be stabilized at all than there are stable sentences. For instance, using Babel Fish the sentence "The cat sat on the mat" quickly stabilizes, but the sentence "Repeat this process until the result stabilizes" will eventually reach such a grammatical mess that Babel Fish returns an error instead of an attempted translation. 152.16.59.190 07:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the tower will crash to the ground causing confusion all round...hotclaws 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption that the sequence will eventually stabilize is false. Two other outcomes are possible: the text could get longer and longer until the algorithm terminates with an error (as observed by 152.16.59.190), or the sequence could begin to oscillate between two or more different texts in each language (as I just observed):

  • Then the tower will crash to the confusion around which Earth cause everything.
  • Entonces la torre se estrellará a la confusión alrededor de la cual causa de la tierra todo.
  • Then the tower will crash to the confusion around which Earth cause all.
  • Entonces la torre se estrellará a la confusión alrededor de la cual causa toda de la tierra.
  • Then the tower will crash to the confusion around which Earth cause everything.
  • ...

It might take a very long time to terminate or start repeating, but these are the only possibilities if the algorithm is running on a computer with finite memory. —Keenan Pepper 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea, I think i'll work on a quick app and see if I get anywhere with it. Capuchin 10:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Minor clarification: You'll note in the original question that I never assert that stabilization is guaranteed to occur for all passages and all translation tools. The example I gave was simply to help explain the (novel?) concept of an automatic-translation-proof passage (if one exists) for Passage-p in Tool-t, in a way that makes sense to people reading this question. Obviously, there are a whole lot of simplifying assumptions here, but the main point was to introduce the basic idea. dr.ef.tymac 14:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Several years ago (four? five? six?) this concept, with a javascript application that fed the results to altavista's old babelfish, was posted to Slashdot. It was fun for a little while, then the traffic killed the site. I haven't heard of it since. gnfnrf 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. counties - what is the difference between established and organized

A book I'm reading lists the dates in which a county was established and when it was organized. What's the difference between the two? What happens when a county is established and when it is organized? I couldn't find any information in the U.S. county article or with a Google search. Psychless 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

At a guess: "established" means its boundaries were (at least loosely) defined; "organized" means its internal government was set up. An unorganized county (or other territory) is a way for the parent state to subdivide its own activities, like sales territories for a commercial company. —Tamfang 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verreisen vs. reisen

Hi, could someone explain to when one would use the German word "verreisen" and when you would use the word "reisen". Are there certain rules or prepositions that goes along with each verb? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.161.21 (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Both words strictly mean "to travel", and the preposition used for the destination is "nach" in both cases (Ich reise nach Italien), but the two verbs carry slightly different connotations:
  • "verreisen" is mostly used without specifying a destination and puts the focus on the fact that you are going to be away from home ("Ich verreise am Samstag" would mean that I am not going to be here next week and that the people I'm telling this want to know whether I will be here or not, not where I'm going). It can be used with a destination ("Ich verreise nach Italien") - this is grammatically correct, although a bit uncommon. This form focusses more on the process of travelling and seems to imply a long and eventful journey .
  • "reisen" is generally used with a specified destination and puts the emphasis more on the destination than on the fact that you're going to be away from home (ie, it would be the correct answer to the question "where are you going?").
  • Both verbs, and the accompanying noun "Reise", are slightly dated as they seem to imply a great journey, months on the road, strange cultures and experiences etc. The more common words in today's language are "Urlaub" as a noun and simple "fahren" as a verb (which is used rather indiscriminately for all methods of transport, even though it literally means "to drive").

--Ferkelparade π 09:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

An addendum on prepositions: you use "nach" for anything that doesn't have a definite article (nach Italien, nach Rom) and "zu" for everything that does have one (zum Himalaya, zur Oma, zum Meer). You can also use "in" when you want to say that you're not only going to Russia (nach Russland) but will be doing a bit of travelling around in the country (in Russland). --Ferkelparade π 10:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Great explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.44.61 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One more note: verreisen is still quite common (i.e. not dated) in expressions like "Ich bin verreist" to mean "I'm out of town". —Angr 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Is the following sentance in correct grammar?

As he came closer. And closer. And closer. My heart start to thump harder. And harder. And harder. -- 07:43, 18 September 2007 219.88.99.8

It's a passage, not a sentence. Some would say that it has excessive sentence fragments, and the verb tense of "start" is not consistent with the verb tense of "came"... AnonMoos 08:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict: the same, a bit longer) As he came closer. And closer. And closer. My heart start to thump harder. And harder. And harder.
You are writing something here that consists mostly of sentence fragments, probably for literary effect. "As he came closer. And closer. And closer." are three sentence fragments: the first is a clause, and the repeated "And closer" is a phrase. Equally "And harder" is a phrase. None of these has the elements necessary for a sentence, which are a finite verb (a verb with its subject) and that it makes complete sense.
"My heart start to thump harder." is a sentence, but it is not quite correct since the subject "My heart" needs the verb to agree with it. That would have to be "starts" in the present, or more likely "started" in the simple past since you set the scene with "As he came". SaundersW 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the original string of words makes a sentence. To be correct, it needs to lose all of those periods, and the second verb needs to agree in number with its subject, as SaundersW points out, and in tense with the independent clause. Here is the correct form of the sentence: "As he came closer and closer and closer, my heart started to thump harder and harder and harder." Stylistically, I think that the triple repitition of the adverbs is excessive. The sentence would work better with simple reduplication: "As he came closer and closer, my heart started to thump harder and harder." Marco polo 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Confusing post, Marco polo. If it makes a sentence, why is any change other than stylistic change called for? -- JackofOz 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The triplication and the excessive stops are, I'll bet, intended to convey slow suspense. I'd be content with this:
As he came closer – and closer – and closer – my heart thumped harder and harder.
(To start thumping is a momentary event, which cannot be dragged out.) —Tamfang 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally there is (unless my memory has mistakenly magnified it) a great description of a drawn-out dreadful event in Robert A. Heinlein's novel Farmer in the Sky. The narrator has emigrated to Ganymede, which is kept habitable by a handwavy force-field called a heat-trap, and the heat-trap breaks down in a quake(?). The passage goes something like this: "Very soon the water in the irrigation ditches would freeze, and then it would get colder. It would get cold enough to freeze the very tears in our eyes, and then the blood in our veins. And then it would get colder ...." —Tamfang 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what's meant is "my heart started to thump harder, and then started to thump even harder, etc.", with three discrete increases is heart-thumping-hardness. 75.3.82.67 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just now

In English, the phrase "just now" is normally used to describe a past event. But sometimes it is used to describe a near future event. Which is actually correct? How does Americans and Britons use it? kawaputratorque 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about British usage, but in general North American usage I don’t think you would use the phrase ‘just now’ to describe a near future event; instead you would use the phrase ‘be about to’ or ‘be just about to’. (For example: “I am just about to click on ‘Save page’.”) --Mathew5000 08:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
As Mathew5000 said, in North American English "just now" is used only in a past tense. I have heard it used to describe a near-future event only when spoken by someone whose native language is Spanish and the person is not yet fluent in English. I assume this is because of the word "ahorita" in Spanish, which means "right now" and is often used to mean "in the very immediate future, as in right now." I can see how someone who is accustomed to using "ahorita" might translate that as "just now" and use that phrase in a very-near-future sense, but that is not considered correct usage. 152.16.16.75 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
As a North American, I'd have to disagree that "just now" is used only in a past tense. It can also be used as mentioned below. --LarryMac | Talk 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Is your specificity because you're Canadian? I'm from the U.S., and I've never heard "I'm doing it just now" except in England. 75.3.82.67 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No, my specificity was because I was responding to the terminology used by the poster right above me. I am from the U.S. also. The problem is with people making blanket statements such as "this is NEVER used," without any reference or citation (the foolishness of attempting to prove a negative notwithstanding). The U.S. is a big place, and North America is even bigger. --LarryMac | Talk 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
When it is used with the past tense, "just now" means "very recently" - I did it just now. It is also, however, used with the present tense to mean "at this moment in time" - I'm unable to get to the phone just now. 80.254.147.52 12:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
British English uses it to mean very near or at the present. "I'm doing it just now." is generally taken to mean "I'm doing it at the very moment." or "I am in the process of starting to do it." Some people might use "right now" as indicated above. It's all a bit vague, but that's one of the nice things about the language. Bazza 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
A small note: "ahorita" is only used in Mexican Spanish. Using that word would make you sound a little like Ned Flanders in Spain (and maybe in other places too), since "ahorita" is something like "li'l now" (in Spain you just say "ahora"). --Taraborn 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Would Spaniards use ya mismo? Corvus cornix 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Taraborn 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to hear some ppl in UK use it to describe something in the present or near future. Like "Yea, I am leaving just now" (soon). So, I thought everyone in UK uses it this way. In Malaysia we use it almost exclusively to refer to the past. Anyway, thanks 4 the answers :) kawaputratorque 09:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a case where 'British usage' is not an adequate phrase. In my speech, and I think in all English (i.e. of England) usage, it is almost always used to mean the near past; but I have often heard Scottish people saying 'just now' where I would say 'right now' - i.e. the present. --ColinFine 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks

I wonder whether some kind of quotation marks are used in all modern languages writing in the Latin alphabet. Also, how do languages with other scripts handle direct speech, quotations, etc. in written texts? I am specifically interested in Asian languages now but information about other languages that are out of my knowledge is welcome too. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

After searching Wikipedia properly, I found this: Quotation mark, non-English usage. However, additional comments are still welcome. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German exams

What is the German equivalent to the Cambridge English exams? I'm teaching myself German and I'd like to prove my knowledge someday. --Taraborn 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Goethe Institute seems to be the place to look. DuncanHill 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You might also like to look at the [Institute of Linguists exams]. SaundersW 15:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)