Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 November 7

= November 7 =

Chinese months and days
Why is March written in Chinese as 3月 with an Arabic numeral instead of 月三? Or inversely, why is Wednesday written 星期三 instead of 3星期? (Or any month or day instead of these specific examples.) Do similar rules apply for all languages written with CJK characters? (Note: I don't speak or write any of these languages, only American English and French.) — Michael J  04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In Korean, months are usually not written in characters. In Chinese and Japanese, you can write either 三月 or 3月. However, in PRC some publishers make it a house-style that all numbers (except those used in set phrases like four-character idioms) be written in Arabic numeral; it is also the norm to use the Arabic numeral in Japanese. In Chinese, 星期三 refers to Wednesday (it is regarded as a set phrase, so 星期3 is rather uncommon), while 3星期 means "three weeks"; in Japanese and Korean, the days of a week are named after the stars (from Sunday to Saturday): 日曜日, 月曜日, 火曜日, 水曜日, 木曜日, 金曜日, 土曜日, so you don't need to worry about the number.--K.C. Tang 06:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume names also use Chinese characters rather than Arabic numerals. Or is Sichuan ever written "4川"? Is the Japanese man's name Bunichi ever written "文1"? (Maybe as a joke?) —Angr 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, proper names are also always written in character.--K.C. Tang 07:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well...not quite always. -Elmer Clark 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In Korean, you'd usually write 3월 or 3月. When writing notes, I write 3月 11日 all the time instead of 3월 11일. --Kjoonlee 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so, it's more economical... and how about the weekdays? How often do people write 日曜日 etc? By the way, I try to generalize the usage in Chinese and Japanese: in PRC and Japan, use Chinese characters only in those set phrases (proper names, idioms etc); in Taiwan and Hong Kong, characters are almost always acceptable, but house-styles vary.--K.C. Tang 12:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Koreans almost always write "3월 11일(월)" or "8月 31日(水)" or something in between. I doubt the average college student will know how to write 曜. --Kjoonlee 18:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Korean order goes 月火水木金土日, unless you're a graduate student (especially if you're in a lab), in which case the order is said to be 月火水木金金金. --Kjoonlee 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Western calendar was adopted by the Nationalists in th 1920's or 30's (I'm not sure which), so the Chinse character for March was coined much more recently than that for Sichuan, and by a modernizing Government - use of Arabic numerals is not surprising. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language_struggle#Background says in the 3rd paragraph: "The last example found of an original Middle Norwegian document is from 1583.".

I was wondering who is the author of the quoted document, which dialect did he speak, where did he write this document, and which dialect did he write in. Thanks.70.74.35.144 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We had much the same question here a few weeks ago (see Samples of Middle Norwegian, on September 23.) Haukur couldn't find any evidence for the 1583 date. Xn4  07:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, just that it isn't in the online edition of Diplomatarium Norvegicum, for whatever reason. Maybe we could be of more help to you if you told us something about what you want to use the information for. Are you writing an historical novel? Haukur 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Doer" nouns
Nouns like "defender" and "invader" are sometimes called "doer" nouns because they refer to a person who does something. Is there a formal name for this type of noun? --Bruce1ee 13:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Agent noun. Also called "noun of agency". --Milkbreath 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. (I did look under noun but there was no mention of agent noun.) --Bruce1ee 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Done. --Milkbreath 15:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Order of Concepts
In the construct "it wasn't even X, much less Y", which can also be heard as "not yet X, never mind Y", and variations on the theme, I keep hearing the more developed or later concept for X, when I think it should be Y. For example:
 * Conception comes before birth, and thus:
 * I hear: "He wasn't born yet, much less conceived"
 * I think it should be: "He wasn't even conceived then, much less born"
 * or, when having a down payment is a precondition to buying a house:
 * I hear "they don't even have their own home yet, never mind the down payment"
 * I think it should be "They don't even have their downpayment yet, never mind their own home.

If I think about this for too long, I get confused. Is there someone out there with an explanation, along with the right answer? Bielle 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your preferred versions are spot on, Bielle. They haven't even got to first base, let alone a home run.  The "first base" condition should appear first, then the "home run" condition.  --  JackofOz 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True, and yet Fowler (1965) calls the "incorrect" form a "sturdy indefensible". You can't imagine a more curmudgeonly taskmaster than Fowler, but even he has to shrug at this one. In the main entry for "much", he goes into great detail on the illogic involved, but the strongest condemnation he can muster is "careless". A lot of people get this expression ass backwards in speech, and it's no big deal. It is confusing. But the careful writer will think it through and get it straight. --Milkbreath 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, except that I can imagine much more curmudgeonly taskmasters than Fowler. jnestorius(talk) 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I shall have to go and unearth my copy of Fowler. It used to live on my desk, but now I have Ref Desk Language, which is much easier to use, if not always quite so authoritative, present commentators excepted, of course. Thanks all. I knew I hated that advertisement for good reason.  Bielle 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What advertisement? (I'm somewhat out of touch with The Media) Tamfang 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to take so long getting back to this question, Tamfang. The advertisment is one on local radio here in eastern Canada. I realized, after you asked the question, that I had written as if everyone would know to what I was referring, when I was really just muttering to myself as I drifted off stage, left. Bielle 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seven whole minutes, harrumph! —Tamfang 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was looking at the date and time on your first comment. I didn't notice that you came back two days late! So I am faster than a speeding blue heron, or such like. :-) Bielle 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If I heard one of the sentences mentioned I'd merely assume that the speaker was a bit distracted. The "sturdy indefensible" discussed by Fowler is the use of "much less" where the first item is positive, as in "It will take all day to read these letters, much less answer them."  – A related pattern that irritates me, seen sometimes in seemingly careful writing, is the form "The cost is worth the benefit," which literally means (at least to me) that the transaction is a loss or at beast a breakeven rather than a gain.  —Tamfang 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)