From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 15	Language desk archive	September 17 >

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 September October >

[edit] September 16

[edit] Deceased character... present tense?

I recently saw someone edit the tag of a deceased fictional character on Prison break (Lisa Rix) stating "She was the mother of L.J.". Am I correct to change that back to "She is the mother of L.J.", because surely being dead doesn't mean she is no longer his mother, right?

GenestealerUK 08:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

'Correct' by what standard? If you are a native or near-native English speaker, then your 'correct' is as good as anybody else's. That doesn't mean that everybody else will agree with you, of course. Could it be (horrors!) that correct is not a single-valued function?

If you don't think it reads right, then change it. My own opinion is that if the work in question is finished (a single book or play), then using the past would imply that the character had died before the start of the story; but if the work is continuing, so that there is a 'now' in it which moves in real time, then the past tense makes sense. ColinFine 09:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with "she was". StuRat 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker (possibly near-native), but I would, too... 惑乱 分からん 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"She was" for me too. Jameswilson 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

She was.--Light current 02:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say it depends on which tense the article was written in. If it is "

"She was", definitely. Not sure why though. -- the GREAT Gavini 06:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe "is/was" refers to the mother, not to the relationship. One phrase that doesn't sound right either way is "George Washington is/was 250 years old in 1982". I'd say "George Washington was born 250 years before 1982", instead. StuRat 07:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "GW would have been 250 years in 1982". 惑乱 分からん 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably depends on the tense the article is written in. Just make sure the tenses are in agreement throughout the article. --AstoVidatu 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, If I'm pointing to a photo of my mother, I say: That is my Mother. BUT 'She was a wonderful person' --Light current 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Meaning either she has passed on or she's still alive, but has become a total bitch recently. :-) StuRat 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No shes dead actually. I should have said that but I thought it would be understood from the context of these posts.--Light current 05:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You should have played the ambiguity as an intentional blunder. There's nothing at all wrong with what you said.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree! I was taught at school that you refer to fictional characters in the present tense (for essays and so on). For example, "The title character in Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. At the end of the play, he dies." Never: "The title character in Hamlet was the Prince of Denmark. At the end of the play, he died." That sounds really wrong. --Grace 06:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that is because he lives during the entire play. I.e. during the timespan you refer to, he exists. I think Lisa Rix has been dead since before the show started. It's a diegetic issue. (I'm taking film studies, now.) 惑乱 分からん 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish abbreviation "r f"

Hi. Does anyone know what r f (or rf) stands for in Swedish? I encountered it in Lapporörelsen r f (which seems to be different from the generic Lapua Movement) and don't know what to do with it. Maybe riksförbund(et)? Google searches are inconclusive. Any help would be appreciated. Rueckk 15:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lappo-??? Can you give us the link? 惑乱 分からん 15:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I read it in a book that I can't link to here. It's from a chapter about the Lapua Movement and its distinctive phases. The whole sentence reads På det femte "Lappoparlamentet" i slutet av november grundades sedan Lapporörelsen r.f., och Suomen Lukko och laglighetsmännen försvann ur rörelsen. That is, the whole movement was called Lapporörelsen, but the Lapporörelsen r.f., founded in 1930, is apparently somehow distinct from the movement in general (probably because it cared less about the legality of its actions than the earlier incarnations of the Lapua Movement had done). A Swedish google search for r f reveals that it is used by many Finnish/Finland Swedish organizations (as in Förbundet Finlands Svenska Synskadade rf). So, apparently it's a Finnish thing. Rueckk 15:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, it could be Riksföreningen or Riksförbundet... 惑乱 分からん 15:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's short for registrerad förening or registered association. It's very much a Finnish thing: in Finland, associations of various types may be registered (and most are), which makes the association into a corporation with a responsible board, legally binding by-laws etc. There's no such thing in Sweden.--Rallette 07:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Rueckk 14:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)