Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

< August 6 Language desk archive August 8 >


Contents

[edit] Use of "data" in a sentence

I'm not sure how to respond here Thanks guys! --mboverload@ 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. · rodii · 02:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, data can be used as both plural and singular. Examples from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: The data was/were collected by various researchers. Now the data is being transferred from magnetic tape to hard disk. [1]. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have just never heard it used as a plural, even though I know it can be. Just doesn't sound right to my ears. --mboverload@ 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor mine. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is plural - the singular is "datum". However it is also a mass noun, and when used in that sense, only the singular form exists. JackofOz 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, it's the singular form that sounded wrong to me. Maybe the fact that I'm Dutch somehow worked to my advantage here, approaching English more from a logical perspective than based on experience. DirkvdM 07:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In compound nouns in English, the first noun is normally in the singular form, even if the meaning is plural. Example: "pea soup". So in "data base" the word "data", originally plural, reveals its singular nature. One says: "The data is corrupted", and not: *"The data are corrupted". Maybe some people prefer the latter, but it is definitely no longer the more common way, and to many people it just sounds wrong. --LambiamTalk 08:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose one must also say: "This people is tall", and not: *"These people are tall", because the Purple People Eater reveals "people" to be singular, right?
You could say, eg. "The Masai are a tall people", but "This people is tall" is very unidiomatic. "People", even when used as a mass noun, is usually taken to be plural, eg. "The Australian people are wonderful, excellent and marvellous". JackofOz 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The prescriptively correct form is "The data are corrupted". "The data is corrupted" is widely used in speech, and as a staunch anti-prescriptivist I'd say it was correct, but Wikipedia is meant to be written in a style "appropriate to an encylopedia", which I suppose includes self-prescriptivism (but I'll still object to articles actually promoting prescriptivism). --Ptcamn 11:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Just assume that the data is something feminine singular, and problem solved :) Adam Bishop 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The style appropriate to this encyclopedia may differ from that appropriate to others. For example, it is only logical to complement our exemplary coverage of the important and encyclopedic topic of Star Trek with acceptance of the split infinitive. (Research in Star Trek-related articles should also make it amply clear that the most singular usage of "data" is as a personal name.) — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If the singular usage of data bothers you, then so should the singular usage of agenda (which is the plural form of agendum), and the word agendas must really drive you nuts. ;-) —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London Placename Etymology

I'm almost certain there used to be such a page on Wikipedia, listing all the borough names, notable streets, squares, etc. with their respective etymologies. But now I can't find it anymore. Is it still around somewhere deeply hidden or was it scrapped?

In either case, can anyone suggest a place where I can find a list similar to Etymological list of counties of the United Kingdom, only about London?

212.186.80.57 10:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The individual articles referring to the boroughs, streets and squares, possibly? I'm not sure. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 11:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying so fast. You're right but skimming through all the articles about London (some 17k of them, Google says) would be too much even for such a (passive) Wikipedia junkie as myself. Besides, it must be aggregated somewhere. So far I have found Knowledge of London's London Street Names but what I once saw on Wikipedia would still be better. Is it possible to search through deleted pages? 212.186.80.57 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that you've been hallucinating. The article doesn't exist: if it did, it would include words such as Gīsla and Hundeslawe from which the names of boroughs derive, but these are only found in the individual borough pages: [2]. A page such as that which contained useful information would not be deleted. In fact, googling for those two names produces 0 hits, so it seems that this information is not aggregated anywhere on the net. HenryFlower 15:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for wasting your time. Apparently I was wrong - although I still can't believe it the facts are ruthless. I have searched through the Web Archive and there is no single trace of such a page. It seems the only source of semi-aggregated information on the topic is the USENET group uk.local.london with threads such as this. I have also found some references to printed sources and the Knowledge of London page I mentioned earlier. As User:Greatgavini correctly pointed out, Wikipedia has this information scattered across various individual articles, but an aggregated article is yet to be written. Hopefully someone will do it someday for the benefit of curious tourists :) 212.186.80.57 18:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request split for schwa article

I think the schwa article should be split into two - schwa (letter) and mid central vowel. Schwa is a letter of Azerbaijani and Chechen alphabet and do not represent mid central vowel (actually it represents near-open front unrounded vowel). Please leave your message at talk:Schwa. thanks!--Hello World! 11:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] motivational words in Japanese

I'm looking to find out a few motivational words in Japanese and thier translations. Specifically relating to business affairs would be best. I'm looking for more culturally-based words, perhaps unique to or even slang in Japan, not just plain old words translated into Japanese. Thank you! --66.27.56.66 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Anne

There's "ganbatte!" for a start. Used as "Good luck!" but literally meaning something like Fight! or Struggle! 惑乱 分からん 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It has lots of grammatical variations too, like ganbarimasu “I shall try hard” and ganbaranakutcha (< ganbaranakereba naranai) “hang in there, keep going, stick it out”. You can say yoisho when people are lifting something heavy and working together. — Jéioosh 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually ganbaranakucha is from ganbaranakute wa [ikenai], but the difference in meaning is subtle. :) — Haeleth Talk 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Anne, a question: what sort of word are you actually after? Words that might be spoken by a manager to his/her team? Words that might be used by members of a team to encourage one another as they work? Phrases that might appear on motivational posters? Words with inspirational etymologies that you can bring up in American meetings to boost your career with a whiff of the inscrutable Orient? Knowing what context we're working in would make it easier to help you! :) — Haeleth Talk 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Anne has clarified her request on my user talk page: "I'm looking for a motivational word that could be used in the Japanese workplace to rally employees, or perhaps a comment that could be made before a trade/negotiation that would be appropriate to encourage friendly or successful relations. It must be just one word, not a phrase. It will be in an English newsletter that is researching business with Japanese counterparts."
This is tricky, particularly the single-word requirement; most of the obvious choices do seem to be phrases rather than words.  :)
I think "Ganbarimashou" (頑張りましょう) would be the best choice: it's the polite hortative form of "ganbaru" as suggested by Wakuran, and means "Let's do our best": it's used to express a collective intention for the team to succeed. This is a very important verb -- it even spawned the (obsolete?) slang word "ganbarism" (ガンバリズム), meaning a can-do attitude.
Among students and children, "Fight!" itself (rendered as "faito" (ファイト)) is used as a general interjection of encouragement, but I think this is too informal.
If we relax the search to include key words from common phrases, then there are interesting options like "kiai" (気合), which is composed of characters meaning literally "spirit" and "join", and is usually translated "fighting spirit": this is typically used in phrases like "kiai wo ireru" (気合いを入れる), which means "to fire oneself up, to put everything one has into [an effort]".
There may be other options; my Japanese is not particularly business-oriented, so I can claim no particular expertise here. One option, if you're not quite satisfied by any of the suggestions you get here, would be to turn to the professionals: there are plenty of books in English on business Japanese aimed at non-specialists, so depending on how tight your deadlines are, you might consider trying to get hold of something along those lines from your local library (or browsing the Japanese section of your nearest decent bookshop), as I'd be surprised if the topic wasn't covered well there. (I haven't read any of those books, so I can't make specific recommendations, I'm afraid.) — Haeleth Talk 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draconic vs. draconian

The Oxford and a number of other reputable dictionaries state that draconic and draconian are interchangeable, and both can mean either "relating to Draco" or "relating to dragons." Is there any consensus about which should be used for which?

On a related note, is the correct term dracology or draconology? NeonMerlin 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "relating to Draco" definition is more common than the "relating to dragons" definition, but both, I reckon, are interchangeable as their meaning can be deduced from the context.

Wiktionary lists both "dracology" and "draconology" as the study of dragons [3] - I'm not sure there is a word relating to the study of Draco's laws...Dracology, perhaps? Better not to coin neologisms though... - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is draco Greek or Latin? For an -ology the root should properly be Greek. It’s okay to coin neologisms as long as you try to get them right. Draconian is synonymous with draconic when discussing dragons or the constellation Draco. However, it seems the two are not synonymous when talking about oppressive rule. In that case draconian is obligatory and draconic is – to my ears at least – incorrect. I speak of “draconian laws and regulations” but never “*draconic laws and regulations”. — Jéioosh 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Right on. JackofOz 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"Draco", both for the name of the Archon of Athens and for the allegedly mythological animal, are the Latin rendering of Greek "Drakōn". So the "proper" form for the field of study is "draconology", and "dracology" is an etymological perversion. --LambiamTalk 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Both senses (Draco and Dragon) come from the same Greek word (δράκων/Δράκων). However—in my experience at least—draconic is used more often while referring to dragons, and vice versa. OED lists neither dracology or draconology (or dragonology), but following from the example of demonology (also from Greek: δαίμων), I'd go with draconology (and also considering that the stem is dracon-, not drac-). :)—porges(talk) 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To sum up what everyone seems to agree on, it would be useful to have the distinction (and it seems to occur in literature):

  • draconian: when related to Draco
  • draconic: when related to dragons

...and the study of dragons is draconology.

[edit] Stress in Hebrew

What are the precise rules for the location of stress in Hebrew words (or where are the rules listed)? Mo-Al 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "precise" rules but see Sounds in New Hebrew. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 06:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That article doesn't actually list the rules for stress. That's what I meant by "precise". Mo-Al 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There were some overall regularities in Biblical Hebrew, but it's very difficult to predict the position of stress in Modern Israeli Hebrew without knowing the exact morphological status of a word. AnonMoos 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. When in doubt, avoiding the English habit of accenting the first syllable is usually right! If you're reading from the Old Testament, a source which carries the traditional trop is invaluable, as the notes are always placed above or below the accented syllable.--Dweller 09:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I speak Hebrew well enough to know where the stress is in words, but what I'm curious about is how that is determined. Mo-Al 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want a broad historical perspective, then pre-Biblical Hebrew had a rather regular phonologically-conditioned stress-positioning rule, but by the time of Biblical Hebrew this regularity had become partially obscured due to a number of sound changes and analogical developments. Modern Israeli Hebrew basically keeps the same stress position as Biblical Hebrew (in native Hebrew words OTHER THAN proper names), but a lot of the phonological distinctions which still enabled partial stress predictability in Biblical Hebrew (such as the distinction between long vowels and short vowels, between double and single consonants, etc.) have disappeared in modern Israeli -- so that stress-positioning is now almost entirely morphologically-determined. Trying to write a list of all the circumstances which contribute or have contributed to modern Israeli stress-positioning would be a rather lengthy and technically-detailed undertaking. AnonMoos 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to discuss modern Hebrew; a description of the laws for biblical Hebrew would suffice. Mo-Al 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)