Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 August 28

= August 28 =

Hindi to English
can hindi translate into english possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajendramouny (talk • contribs) 11:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to translate from Hindi to English ? Sure.  As with any pair of languages, there may be some words in Hindi which don't have a direct English translation, but they can always be translated to a series of words in English.  For example, many languages have different words for "male cousin" and "female cousin", but English doesn't (I don't know if Hindi does).  So, you would need to translate that single word in those languages into two words in English.


 * If you are asking about web sites where you can get either a machine translation or request a human translation from Hindi to English, I don't know of any, myself. Perhaps someone else does.  StuRat 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * English to hindi machine translation exists, hindi to english seems to be in the experimental phase - there are plenty of places working on it but I couldn't find a working site.
 * We also have people such as Category:User hi-3 who speak hindi - many of these speak english as well, I haven't found anyone volunteering to do a translation. I don't know if it's polite to just turn up on someones talk page an request a translation - though we are told to 'be bold'. I can't give any more.87.102.90.8 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on, here http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/machine-translation/hindi-enco/ we have hindi to UNL - that's a start....87.102.90.8 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)(though I couldn't get it to work)

Luggage
In the US "luggage" means containers used to carry clothes, etc., during vacations. I get the impression from the usage of the term at the end of the holdall article that in the UK this term means the clothes, etc., themselves. Is this correct ? StuRat 12:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have said so. There is perhaps a distinction in that I (personally) would take "luggage" to refer to the container and the contents, rather than just the container. It all gets a bit metaphysical when you consider what you call the contents of your luggage once you remove them from the container - stuff?. However, I think I can safely say that in common usage, "luggage" does not refer only to the contents, but to the sum total. -- Worm  ( t  12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have said that "luggage" refers to whatever you are carring around, container or no. Think outside the box 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. In the US you can go to a store and "buy luggage", which means empty suitcases, etc. Would you refer to the empty suitcases as luggage in the UK ? Also, if I'm wrong, then that statement at the end of holdall about putting luggage inside the holdall means putting a suitcase, etc., in the bag, which seems a rather odd thing to do. StuRat 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes (or no) - (UK) Luggage is the suitcase/holdall, it also is the contents, it also refers to many types of transported personal goods.
 * It may be the container plus the contents.87.102.90.8 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Would you refer to the empty suitcases as luggage in the UK?" That's just the question. I certainly wouldn't, to me it sounds quite wrong, as wrong as putting a van of furniture into my house, rather than a van-load. If I were to put empty suitcases (or trunks) onto the van, they would be simply that, and not luggage. Xn4 05:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would certainly not call empty suitcases "luggage". In the limit they might be "empty luggage" if you have just taken the stuff out, but "luggage" is stuff that you "lug" around, not the containers that you put it in. Sometimes you see a "luggage department" in a shop, but shop English is different from the language that people use outside the commercial environment. SaundersW 11:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (UK: England)


 * OK, then we do seem to have a diff from US English, where luggage refers to the containers you use to lug things around (either when full or empty), but never the contents alone. StuRat 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are these grammatically correct?
Please tell me if the following sentences are correct:

It is you who are responsible for the action.

It is I who am your friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.86.109 (talk) 14:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * First one is no - I'd use, "It is you who is responsible for the action,", but I'm not a big fan of that sentence because it sounds fairly awkward. I think who is replaceable by whom, too.  Second one is, "It is I who is your friend," but again sounds awkward.  Who replaceable by whom, I think, too.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say both sentences are prescriptively correct, if rather stilted, and "whom" would be both prescriptively and descriptively wrong in both. More idiomatic, of course, would be "You are the one who is responsible for the action" and "I am the one who is your friend". —Angr/talk 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Angr. The sentences are grammatically correct (if very formal) as written.  Marco polo 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just basic English conjugation. "It is you who is" because "It" is the singular subject, and "is" is the singular conjugation for the third person. "It" is the subject of the second sentence as well. "Who" and "whom" are not interchangeable. "Who" acts as a subject, and "whom" acts as an indirect object. Think "Who are you" and "To whom will you give this". You'll find a preposition sits before "whom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.224.12 (talk) 17:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some confusion in the previous comment. The original poster's are and am are the verbs of the relative clause, so their agreement is determined by the subject of the relative clause, not by the subject of the sentence (which is irrelevant).  The subject of each relative clause is the pronoun who, and prescriptive grammar (as Angr and Marco Polo have said) requires that a relative pronoun referring to the first or second person agree as if it were a first or second person personal pronoun.  In other words, since who refers to I, it takes the same agreement (am).  Wareh 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The original poster's sentences are correct, but several of the suggested alternatives are wrong. Angr, Marco Polo, and Wareh have it right. --Reuben 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This surprised and confused me, but "It's they who are your real friends" sounds right to me. Hmm. Tesseran 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I would have thought "who am" would be always wrong except in "who am I" and so on. --Kjoonlee 04:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Angr, Marco Polo, Wareh and Reuben. Both sentences need no red-pencilling, but they both sound stilted. To get nearer to natural English, I might say "The person responsible for the action is you" and "You have a friend. I am your friend." Xn4 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "It is I who am your friend" sounds odd, because almost nobody speaks that way. Ergo, it's descriptively ungrammatical.  But prescriptively, it's correct.  This is because in "It is I who am your friend", "who" refers to "I", and "I" is followed by "am", not "is" or "are".  (As in, "I who am nothing, I who have no-one ...").  But compare this with "I am the one who is your friend".  Here, "the one" is 3rd person, despite the fact that it refers to "I".  Hence, it takes "is".  --  JackofOz 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I, who am the writer of this sentence, wonder whether any of you object to it. &mdash;Tamfang 19:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not I who have any objections to it. --  JackofOz 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Esperanto to English translations?
Is there an automatic Esperanto to English translation service available?

EoGuy 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)EoGuyEoGuy 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=esperanto+english+translate&meta= 87.102.18.14 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)