Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 September 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 19 Language desk archive September 21 >
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 >

Contents

[edit] Tan bella como los días en verano?

Has the song "My Cherie Amour" by Stevie Wonder been translated and recorded in any dialect of the Spanish language? Hyenaste (tell) 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Pupil' and 'student'

The word 'pupil' meaning a child at school seems to be falling out of favour. In the UK now, children at school are invariably referred to as 'students'. I think there is an agenda here - 'student' sounds cooler and less deferential than 'pupil'. But to me, students attend colleges and universities, while pupils attend schools. Any comments? --Richardrj talk email 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a similar distinction in Swedish, if that'd matter. 惑乱 分からん 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think of pupils as being more of a bright-eyed bunch. :-) StuRat 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
One point!--Light current 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be 'dark-eyed'? (Or do I miss a 'point' here?) DirkvdM 06:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"Bright eyed" or, better yet, "bright eyed and bushy-tailed", means excited and willing to learn. StuRat 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, I got that bit. Sorry about pointing out a flaw in your pun. Then again, 'dark eyed' might suggest you're looking at the wrong end. Which might result in charges for 'child molestation', depending on whether you're looking at a pupil or a student. :) DirkvdM 05:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think, while the Swedish student probably is equivalent with the English student, the Swedish elev might sometimes be slightly different from the English pupil. I heard a Swedish teacher (on university level) who preferred elev to student, since he thought that while student simply describes your position in society, elev indicates a respectful relation to a person who shares his knowledge with you (like an apprentice or disciple). So, you'd be student in the administrative database of your university and elev when interacting with your teacher. —Bromskloss 08:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"Pupil" does indeed usually refer to those who go to primary school. I think "pupils" is being replaced by "students" because "student" sounds more mature and important. -- the GREAT Gavini 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Which doesn't make the children themselves any more mature or important than they were when they were called pupils, of course. This usage stinks, IMHO. Ah, the tribulations of being a language prescriptivist. --Richardrj talk email 12:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a former teacher and loathed the term 'students' for 'pupils'. Not only do children miss out on their own childhoods by being swept into a faux adulthood, but it makes them think they're on a par with their teachers. Teachers can no longer tell pupils what to do, they have to build a relationship them and reason with them as if they were equals. As Mrs. Krabappel would say 'Haa!!!' I'm much happier now, btw, as a former teacher :D . Rentwa 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't they have to lower the drinking age quite considerably before pupils could properly be thought of as students?--Shantavira 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Teachers who are stoned tend to have large pupils. Edison 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
2 points--Light current 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're giving too much power to the word, Rentwa. I really doubt most children feel more empowered or even adult-like by the term "student" (especially if, like me, they had never been called "pupil") although if they do feel that way it's probably something entirely different causing it like Paris Hilton or global warming. AEuSoes1 18:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been there (only during training fortunately). Children (especially in deprived areas of the UK) percieve no qualitative difference between themselves and their teachers in terms of social status, human rights, respect for authority, age deference etc. They consider their views (mostly swallowed whole from TV adverts and pop music) and wishes (childish, irresponsible and un-thought out) to be as valid as their elders and betters, and there are plenty of politically motivated people encouraging them to think so. I'm not saying the language is to entirely to blame, but it's part of it and it's political. Like 'empowered'. Rentwa 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an Americanism. "Pupil" sounds incredibly stuck-up and snobbish to the American (and even Canadian) ear. --Charlene.fic 18:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I know one American newspaper's style is to use "pupil" for elementary and middle-schoolers and "student" for high school and college. "Kindergarten student" sounds funny. -- Mwalcoff 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Kindergarten pupil" sounds even more bizarre, to me. One would talk of a school's pupils, or a teacher's pupils, but not of a kindergarten pupil. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
A children's garden iris. Odd indeed. DirkvdM 06:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not so odd. Irises are often found growing in gardens where children play. That would make it a "children's iris garden", or Kinderpupilgarten. If only I knew the German word for iris (the plant), then my task here would be complete. JackofOz 07:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Follow the interwiki link. It's Schwertlilie or, surprise, Iris :) —da Pete (ばか) 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
(smacks forehead) Dumkopf! Danke, da Pete. OK, I suppose that gives us Kinderschwertliliegarten. This has become too tangential even for me now. JackofOz 09:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Why must we provide reasons? There are no reasons why words become preferred over others, and some words die out. It is a chaotic system. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say that a pupil is someone who receives education, whereas a student is someone who seeks to be educated - the former being passive, the latter being active. It therefore implies that a person is making a choice to better themselves, though this point of view is clearly open to interpretation --russ 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] french recipies

i was looking for recipies in french in the internet but i found their language a bit too tough for me . this is a french project for me to do , but i have been learning french for only a few months and so i am familiar with verbs like faire ,eplucher,mettre,melanger so please could u tell me about any simple recipies [[mightright]mightright]212.72.3.205 14:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple? How simple? I mean, making bouillon from a cube is a recipe, and it's pretty simple. There's a French recipe Wikibook that might help. The recipe for Croque-monsieur is pretty straightforward, although it does require a grille à croques-monsieurs that might not be on the market where you live. --Diderot 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh man, you made me hungry! So, let's see, I have bread, ham, cheese, butter, basil and mabye even some sausage. Thats it, on y va, off to make a croque-monsieur! —Bromskloss 08:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

by simple i mean the recipe should be in simple french because i havent learnt many verbs snce i am a beginner . (please dont take an offense but why do you think i would ask for a recipe guide in a language desk 212.72.3.205 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I guess your best option would be to take a look at the French recipes I pointed to and see if there are any that you can figure out. You've listed four verbs and I can't think of any non-trivial recipes that just use those four verbs, so you might find it hard to identify a recipe where you already know all the words. I guess the simplest strategy would be to look for a short one. --Diderot 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place name that starts with Y and ends with J?

Anybody know a place name, city, state, country, province, etc. that starts with a Y and ends with a J? It can be any length, as this is not for a crossword puzzle.

Yalxoroj, Yasuj, Yaroslavj and you too can wade through Special:Prefixindex MeltBanana 16:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there are some place name lists you could skim through on the Internet. I remember one list including information with annual rainfall for all places listed, but I don't remember the link... 惑乱 分からん 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I found one list now, but it's quite tedious to look through:
惑乱 分からん 16:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yaroslavj appears to be a typo. There are some conventions for transliterating Cyrillic that use j, but they don't also use ya. —Tamfang 07:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that works. Thanks!!!

[edit] Commas

If in a paragraph, I am talking about the past and giving dates ect. Then I say, "Today, the building has been restored to its old colors."

Does a comma follow Today?

Yes. --LambiamTalk 17:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it is necessary. "Today the building has been restored" sounds fine to my ears", and the version with a comma sounds a bit strange. I would use the comma if it was an antithesis ("Yesterday, the building was destroyed. Today, the building has been restored."). —Daniel (‽) 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
When was the building restored? Today? or before today?--Light current 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. "Has been restored" means the color restoration occurred some time in the past - which could be months, years, decades or even centuries before today. So, saying this is true "today" adds no value at all. You could simply leave the "today" out entirely, or rephrase it as "The building has since been restored to its old colors". JackofOz 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this example?

The great building was built in 1097. In 1234 is was repainted. Later the buidling was closed off. Today, people are allowed inside the buidling for pictures.

Most public restrooms are located in a "buidling" - you know, those places you go to for piddling. Not sure I want to be taking any photos there. But StuRat probably has his camera at the ready.  :--) JackofOz 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This is probably one of those examples where comma usage is being phased out by lazy punctuators. Historically the comma was an absolute necessity, and it would be proper to keep the comma even now. A teacher may not mark you down for forgetting it on a test(,) though.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Traditionally, it is considered correct to place a comma after introductory adverbs and adverb phrases; so I prefer the comma. Having said that, it is not absolutely necessary. In your second example, I feel a comma is necessary after today to avoid confusion; i.e., today could be misread as an adjective modifying people (what the heck are today people?). I've recast your second example: "The great building was built [or constructed or completed, etc.] in 1097 and repainted in 1234. Closed off to the public for many years, people are now allowed inside the building for pictures." —Wayward Talk 04:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Closed off to the public for many years, people are now allowed inside the building for pictures. Is "dangling modifier" the term I want? Although building does appear in the sentence, syntax suggests that closed belongs to people. As a careful writer, this can be comical. —Tamfang 06:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right. "Closed off for many years, the building is now open to the public." —Wayward Talk 03:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] french translation

is the french translation for "the indian cuisine" :"la cuisine indenne"212.72.15.107 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

La cuisine indienne. I'm sure that's what you meant but I didn't want a typo to go further than that. AEuSoes1 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

so only my spelling is wrong what about the accent or cap"Mightright 18:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No caps, no accents. In French, only proper nouns are capitalized, not derived adjectives. None of the words you used has a diacritic mark. --Diderot 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian cuisine, as in Native American cuisine, would be la cuisine amérindienne, probably. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OT, but an Indian restaurant in Cambridge used to advertise 'Indian provençale cuisine'. I think they thought 'provençale' was a posh way of writing 'provincial'. ColinFine 12:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schleimstoffe

What's the best translation for the German word de:Schleimstoffe? Slime-stuff? I can't find it in any German dictionaries. Also, please translate that German article and put it on the English Wikipedia, if it's any good. —Keenan Pepper 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Stoffe is plural, the singular form is "Schleimstoff", "Stoff" has got a different meaning than stuff, rather meaning "material" or "matter". http://dict.leo.org gives the translation fibril, and it appears the German article is about medicinal plants. 惑乱 分からん 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Without context I would have interpreted 'Schleimstoffe' as meaning mucin. In a herbal-medicinal context it seems to refer to any 'slimy' or mucous polysaccharide, such as xylan, secreted by a plant. ---Sluzzelin 07:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Keenan, if you think the German article is worth translating, why don't you have a crack at it? ColinFine 12:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that Keenan knows any German... 惑乱 分からん 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope. I know guten Tag and gesundheit and that's about it. =P —Keenan Pepper
Oh, right. I suggest you put it on Wikipedia:German-English translation requests. ColinFine 18:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the meaning is "mucilaginous substances". This appears to include both mucilage and mucopolysaccharides. I don't think the claims made in the German article can be scientifically substantiated in the generality with which they are stated. For me this is Category:Pseudoscience. --LambiamTalk 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] effort

I need some ways that you can help people giving some effort

Rephrase, please? 惑乱 分からん 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Pushing helps. Sometimes pulling.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Has the phrase 'suitly emphazi' gone out of fashion? DirkvdM 06:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collective nouns and possessives

I have a couple minor grammar questions. First, which these are correct:

  • He goes to Frank and my school
  • He goes to Frank's and my school
  • He goes to Frank and Bob's school
  • He goes to Frank's and Bob's school

in each case referring to only a single school. Is it 1 and 3 or 2 and 4? Also, regarding collective nouns, would it be correct (in American English) to say "The Yankees is my favorite team," or must you say "The Yankees are..."? Does the same rule apply for "The Yankees are/is playing tonight?" (Talking about the New York Yankees here if there's any confusion). I get the impression from here that only "are" is acceptable in both cases in both American and British English. Is this correct? Any style guide or similar sources would be much appreciated as well. Thanks. -Elmer Clark 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentence three is right; four is wrong. "The Yankees is" is incorrect in American English, because the word "Yankees" is plural. But it is correct to say "Nine Inch Nails is great." -- Mwalcoff 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What about The Beatles? Is they great? JackofOz 07:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In British English it would be more likely (than in American English) to use "the Yankees is", but I guess do the fact that the name ends in an s, there is a strong tendancy to use are. It also depends a little on context, i.e. if you are talking about the team as an organization, or as a bunch of players.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm, is it? This seems to suggest otherwise. "The Yankees is" sounds quite weird to British ears. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess I was over-attributing the culture difference. I can see now that the "s" on the end makes the rule.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In British usage it is the sense that matters, so we can say both 'the government is' and 'the government are', depending on whether we are considering the government as a body or a group of people. However, because of the plural word, I don't think there are many contexts in which we would say 'the Yankees is'. ColinFine 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Examples two and three are correct. When one of the possessors in a compound possessive is a personal pronoun, as in the first two examples, both possessors must be in the possessive form (example two). However, I think example two is awkward and would rephrase the sentence: "He goes to the same school as Frank and I." As for the second question, "The Yankees are playing Sunday," but "New York is playing on Sunday," and "The team plays on Sunday." —Wayward Talk 04:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
A rule of thumb for analyzing usage in sentence 1 and 2 is to remove a clause and see if it seems right: "He goes to Frank school" sounds wrong, so I would say "He goes to Frank's and my school." Number 3 sounds right only if "Frank n' Bob" are an item and you can hardly think of one without the other, as in "He fought in George and Tony's war in Iraq." If the two are not normally a pair, I would make each possessive, and choose number 4.

[edit] OR usage

In a recent dinosaur comic, the sentence "I can't brush and floss three times a day plus after every snack, drink, or intense fantasy about food." appeared. Should the last or not technically be and? And if not, what's with this weird ambiguity?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"I think its OK. Lists dont have to be lists of "ands": you can also have lists of "ors", if you see what I mean. "I havent decided whether to go to France, Italy or Greece for my holiday". If you think of this list as "snack OR drink..." rather than "and" then the next "or" is logical. Jameswilson 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well that depends on the purpose of the list. "I haven't decided to go to France, Italy, or Greece" makes sense because it's not physically possible to go to more than one, i.e. the choice is limited to only one.
Another example would be "I'm not allowed to floss, brush, or eat", which means that any one (or more, because in this case it is possible to choose many) would constitute some sort of concequence.
But, "I can't run and play or eat" sounds counterintuitive (to me) because of the strange combination of "and" and "or". I understand that in the first example I gave, "or" might not be completely wrong, but I definitely think "and" should have been used for clarity.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "and" appears more technically correct, but it introduces an ambiguity that could suggest snack + drink + fantasy, then floss (ie. after all three together). "Or" indicates that only one of these is necessary.--Shantavira 06:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting you should mix "ands" and "ors". But I've re-read it and I still the author meant this to be an "or" list not an "and" list - "every snack or drink, etc". I.e., he's giving a list of possible occasions after which you are supposed to floss. Anyway we'll have to agree to disagree. Jameswilson 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think that the distance from my homeland is obscuring my ability to sense how natural a choice of words is. His name is Ryan, by the way, and his Canadian English is impeccable.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)