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

= May 28 =

Unknown Language
The question mark language: I went 2 a website and the language was (?)Cant I copy and paste it on a translator or is there a downloadable translator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.210.163 (talk • contribs)


 * That would be a language using a non-Latin script that you don't have a font installed for. Could you perhaps post a link to the page, so that we can direct you to an appropriate font? -Elmer Clark 08:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay then ya'll would be able to translate it right?

Identification of kanji
Last year, while on vacation at Disney World, I bought a souvenir at the Japan pavilion at Epcot, and I only just today hung it up in my room. When I did, I noticed two kanji near the bottom-right. Here is an edited photo of them. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could identify them for me. Technically, all I really require is their reading, either in rōmaji or hiragana; I can easily handle the rest, as I can read hiragana and know the right translation tools. The only thing stopping me is the fact that I obviously can't scan through the thousands of kanji to figure out which they are. :P Thanks in advance! —OneofThem(talk) (contribs) 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * it reads 京都. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! —OneofThem(talk) (contribs) 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"The" before foreign book title
I feel it very awkward to have a "the" added before a work which is transliterated instead of translated. "The Qur'an" is ok, as it's well known, but not for others. We don't add "the" when there's already a "the" in the title (Le Petit Larousse), but sometimes you just don't know. Compare Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal and  Xinhua Zidian: one author used "the", one didn't. So has any pundit said anything about this problem?--K.C. Tang 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that "The Qur'an" follows the established form "The Bible". Tesseran 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you know the meaning of the title, and you would naturally use the definite article in front of the translated title, then it is natural to also use it in front of the original title in running text (except when used attributively; you also don't say "a the Bible edition"). For example, Bible mean literally "Book", and it would be rather strange to say: I was reading Book last night. Likewise Qur'an means "Recitation", so you would use the Recitation. In Arabic the definite article is used as well: al-Qur’an. Using this rule, it should be "The Xinhua Zidian is the world's most popular dictionary", but "Commercial Press published a new Xinhua Zidian edition". --Lambiam Talk  12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lambiam, you're correct, though my concern is not exactly grammar, but how it sounds when read aloud: "The"+"some foreign words that you're not sure how to pronounce"+"is"+... It sounds quite jarring to me. Perhaps it's just me. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just you. &mdash;Tamfang 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes me cringe is e.g. "the H[er] M[ajesty's] S[hip] Pinafore", for the same reason as "A[utomatic] T[eller] M[achine] machine". &mdash;Tamfang 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cringworthy spelling
My Oxford Spelling Dictionary (1998) has cringing, fringing, and impinging, BUT hingeing, singeing, syringeing, and tingeing. Shouldn't they all have -e- or is there some logic behind the difference that I am missing?--Shantavira|feed me 08:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for singeing it's obvious: if you left out the e you'd have singing, which is something quite different. For the others, especially syringing [which my browser's spellchecker accepts and so must be OK in American English], you'd think the e-less spelling would be unambiguous. —Angr 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The OED gives hinging and syringing as correct (looks like the OUP need some joined-up lexicography). Tingeing needs that spelling to distinguish it from "tinging: the action of the verb ting" Algebraist 12:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a verb ting? Past tense tang, past participle tung? —Angr 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's intransitive, so no "tung:"
 * American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ting      (tĭng)  Pronunciation Key
 * n.  A single light metallic sound, as of a small bell.


 * intr.v.  tinged (tĭngd), ting·ing, tings
 * To give forth a light metallic sound.


 * [From Middle English tingen, to cause to ring, of imitative origin.]


 * (Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
 * Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
 * Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 * -- F a l c o n u s p t c 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, also transitive verbs usually have a past participle: sting – stang – stung. Furthermore, to ting can also be used as a transitive verb: ting –verb (used without object), verb (used with object) 1. to make or cause to make a high, clear, ringing sound. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). --Lambiam Talk  16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. Anyway the definition that I was looking at said that it was intransitive.  Go figure... I don't know why that inspired me to say that it had no past participle; I know better than that.  Sorry for the incorrect info.-- F a l c o n u s p t c 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, just out of curiosity, what does "Cringworthy" mean - I couldn't find it on dictionary.com.-- F a l c o n u s p t c 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cringeworthy — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see; there's an 'e' in there. :-) Thank you, -- F a l c o n u s p t c 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Oxford Spelling Dictionary would appear to be have a touch of style guide in its make-up. A standard dictionary will list all acceptable variant spellings, whereas a style guide will select one and mandate it, for consistency. As regards which variant spelling to select, Britons are more inclined to leave an e where Americans drop it: see American and British English spelling differences. In BrE, the feeling is that for a short word, leaving the e in the derivative makes the root word more obvious; even if there is no e-less word to confuse it with, a reader might spend a fraction of a second wondering whether there is before deciding there isn't. For example "aging" might suggest a (non-existent) word of a piece with "aglow", "aloft", "agley", etc, while "ageing" doesn't.  I agree  that "syringing" is less dangerous: perhaps it might suggest *syrening??)  Of course, to an AmE reader, the e is itself a distraction which might cause a puzzled hesitation.  You can't win. jnestorius(talk) 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious...
Which of the following is more correct?
 * I know that that grammar makes no sense to me.

or
 * I know that grammar makes no sense to me.

Also, does the first example count as a Double copula?

Whenever I am writing a paper, I invariably find myself using "that" twice in a row. I usually go back and remove one of them, but I don't know which is correct.

Thanks,

-- F a l c o n u s p t c 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a double copula because "that" isn't a copula. There are two completely different words "that", in fact, but neither of them is a copula. The first "that" is a determiner (or in more traditional terms, a demonstrative adjective) that is used with a noun to specify a particular one of a class (literally or figuratively relatively distant to the speaker, as opposed to "this", for things literally or figuratively closer to the speaker). The second "that" is a complementizer (or in more traditional terms, a subordinating conjunction) that introduces a subordinate class, as in "I know that apples taste good". The complementizer "that" may be omitted, so "I know apples taste good" is also correct. In your first sentence above, you are using both "that"s next to each other, which is perfectly correct. Your second sentence, however, is ambiguous: it isn't clear whether you're using the demonstrative "that" and omitting the complementizer "that" (saying roughly "I know [that grammar (over there) makes no sense to me]") or whether you're using the complementizer "that" and referring to grammar in general ("I know that [grammar (in general) makes no sense to me]"). So if you're referring to grammar in general, only the second sentence is correct. If you're referring to some specific grammar, both sentences are correct, but the first one is unambiguous. —Angr 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks; I understand now.-- F a l c o n u s p t c 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "two-that" form, I think you got it backwards: the first "that" is the subordinate conjunction, and the second is the demonstrative adjective. --TotoBaggins 18:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was being imprecise. I didn't mean "first" and "second" in the sense of "first/second one to appear in the example sentence". I just meant there are two words and numbered them randomly. —Angr 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Angr beat me to it, and did a fantastic job answering the question. I'll just add that even though your sentence is grammatical, if you don't like the sound of it, go ahead and change something!  When the same construction comes up again and again in your writing, take a step back and try to think of ways to rearrange the entire thought.  --Reuben 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. -- F a l c o n u s p t c 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

explicit and explicitly
i want to know when i should use explicit and when i should use expicitely when i form a sentance, anybody can help?
 * "Explicit" is the adjective. It therefore is used as "He disobeyed the explicit order." "Explicit" went with "order" in that sentence. "Explicitly" is the adverb; it gets used to modify a verb.  Therefore the word "explicitly" is used explicitly with verbs.  "Explicitly" modified "used" in that sentence.  If that doesn't help, maybe someone can clarify it.
 * -- F a l c o n u s p t c 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"memore of his ristrettezze"
What does this mean in plain simple English?--Doug talk 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Literally: mindful of his restrictions (or straits, economic difficulties, e.g.). Ristrettezze could possibly also refer to ristrettezza di veduta in which case it would mean mindful of his narrow-mindedness. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is in reference to an inheritance that Petrarch gave to Boccaccio "to Giovanni Boccaccio, memore of his ristrettezze, fifty fiorini of gold in order to buy one winter garment to be worn while studying during the night hours"; so mindful of his economic difficulities might apply or mindful of his straits or mindful of his restrictions might also apply. Now my understanding is that Boccaccio was not hurting ("economic wise"), so perhaps the later two would be more appropriate.....??? Any guesses further what exactly it might mean? I do not think mindful of his narrow-mindedness applies. What do you think further on this? Would mindful of his restrictions or straits apply to money then? It seems to me that "50 fiorini of gold" would have been in excess for a simple winter coat then. The same amount was given to Giovanni Dondi dall'Orologio (scientist and physician) for a "small finger ring". In comparison I see he gave his brother Gherardo a sum of 100 florins or 5 - 10 florins annually (whichever he wanted). This would be like a winter coat and a finger ring for a total inheritance to his brother or a tenth of a winter coat for an annual income. Was 100 florins a large sum then or a small sum? --Doug talk 23:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This table lists the value of 1 florin as equivalent to 300 ducats in 1337, when Bocaccio was in his early twenties. So 100 florin would be worth about 30,000 ducats, or the price of a "Luxury townhose (sic) with courtyard". In other words, quite a lot. But I don't know how reliable this table is, whether it applies to later decades in the 14th century, and where it takes this information from. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Petrarch could be mocking Boccaccio. Tesseran 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The money makes sense to me. This would be then equalivent to a $300,000 townhouse in the United States (except perhaps for California). Many places you can get a "Luxury townhose with courtyard" for this in the United States (perhaps even Europe). Then the annual income of one tenth this or $15,000 - $30,000 would make sense, since this is an amount one could live on each year. So "50 fiorini of gold" would then be worth (in equivalent approximate today's dollars) about $150,000 = an excessive amount for just a winter coat. A "finger ring" could cost $150,000, especially for a scientist and physician. Also if I am correct, Boccaccio had lots of money so this would not necessarily be a great benefit to him. I do not believe Petrarch was mocking Boccaccio, since he was a very close friend. What do you suppose "a winter coat to be worn while studying and working during the night hours" meant then?--Doug talk 12:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)