Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 1

= December 1 =

translation from latin to english
y tiempo para disfrutarlas/salud amor y pesetas


 * That's Spanish. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and it means "... and time to enjoy them/health, love and pesetas (money)" Steewi (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

question about the sentence 這是食物嗎？ 是的，它是.
Hey everyone! I was using livemocha.com and I came across the sentence 這是食物嗎？ 是的，它是. which they tell me means "Is it food? Yes, it is." This leads me to the question of what really is the distinction between using 這是 or 這不是, 這 + measure word + 是, and 它是. In the sentence, it tells me that both of them are "it is." So please, in your response, please tell me 1. What is the distinction between 這是 and 它是 and when do you use each? 2. What is the distinction between 這是 and 這 + measure word + 是? THANK YOU! Yakeyglee (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Zhe shi 這是 means "this is"; ta shi means "he/she/it is". There is only one third-person pronoun in modern Chinese (ta), but you can write it in different ways. So you can see 他 ("he"), 她 ("she"), 它 ("it"), 祂 ("He") in writings, although they all represent the same word (ta). In natural speech, we usually don't use pronoun for the non-human. It is used in writings, but only recently (influenced by the Western languages). Even in writings, the overuse of "it" 它 is often frowned upon (it just doesn't sound natural). 2. Zhe+measure word+shi is more like "this one is".--K.C. Tang (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Learn Russian to read chess books
is it worth learning russian to read good chess books? how good must my russian be to read good chess books and how long must i learn to reach that level, when my english and chinese are quite good? any useful resources to get started?


 * If your goal is to learn chess, I'd have to think your time would be better spent studying chess than Russian. On the other hand, if you want to learn Russian anyway, then go for it.   I can't imagine Chinese and English being any help with learning Russian, though.  Perhaps if you knew another Slavic language using the Cyrillic alphabet, then that might help. StuRat (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think to read chess books you have to have only a very limited vocabulary, but I agree, learning Cyrillic letters are a big barrier. However learning them are far not difficult as Arabic or Chinese. Almost every Cyrillic letter can be corresponded to a Latin one and the pronuciation is rather straightforward. I have learnt German from chess books and learnt Russian in school, so I speak by experience :). --Zimmy (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think learning the Cyrillic alphabet is going to take a lot of time, so that shouldn't be an obstacle. As Zimmy said, to read annotated chess games does not require a very large vocabulary. And for the moves Russian chess publications use Algebraic chess notation with the Latin alphabet. So all in all it shouldn't be too difficult to learn to read Russian chess books. Nevertheless I would not advise you to do so, if that's your only reason to study Russian, because it just isn't necessary. In general chess books sell quite well, and for that reason most of the good Russian chess books have long been available in English translation. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Cyrillic alphabet is one of the easiest things to learn about Russian. There's a popular misconception that Russian, Greek etc are much harder to learn than they might otherwise have been because they have an unfamiliar alphabet.  That's simply not true.  They're hard enough (as any foreign language is), but the alphabet is quickly mastered by most people, leaving them free to focus on the heavenly delights of such things as глаголы движения (verbs of motion).  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've experienced a bit of a catch as a native English speaker learning the Cyrillic alphabet. A chart of equivalent letters is easily found and printed, then to hand-code roughly into thirds with three colors of highlighting as follows: (a) same as English, (b) looks like an English letter but has the sound of a different one, and (c) no correspondence, gotta learn these. The (b) group is where I ran aground. Similar problems arise for a native English-speaking touch typist trying to master the layout of the Hebrew keyboard. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Group (b) is easier if you know the Greek alphabet, since most members of it correspond to Greek letters. For that matter, some members of group (c) are easier if you know Greek, too. —Angr 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that people playing at a high level in chess can benefit a lot from being able to read Russian. It's not as necessary as a knowledge of Japanese is for go. But when I went to college, our chess club had a number of books in Russian, and I remember that a couple of really good players (2000-2200 Elo, much better than I was) would use them. Since I spoke Russian well, they'd sometimes ask me what certain words meant. At my level of play (1500), I seriously doubt there was anything that I couldn't have gotten from books in English.
 * If you want to learn to read Russian, but don't care about learning to speak it, there are books designed for that. (Many PhD programs in English-speaking countries require a reading knowledge of one or two foreign languages, so that students can read research literature in those languages. Russian is probably the most common choice after French and German.) It's much easier to learn to understand a language than it is to learn to speak it, so you shouldn't get a regular beginner's book. Here's a page I found that lists some choices: . If you're also interested in science, there are other books intended specifically for those who want to read scientific publications in Russian. 128.32.238.145 (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A suggestion if learning a new language isn't for you: I have at home a massive book with exercises from the most basic to presentations from points in countless games between masters. I don't have it with me right now, but I believe it is Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games by László Polgár, both of whose daughters are grandmasters, so he might know something about teaching people chess. There is nothing at all to read in the book, except for the introduction, which is in English and many other languages; you learn by playing. Now, I never was a great chess player, but the book comes from my grandfather, who absolutely is. So maybe you don't need to learn Russian after all. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I met an Israeli, who as a teenager was ranked very highly in the world for his age, before giving chess up. He said that he'd taught himself sufficient Russian to be able to understand Russian chess books, without too much difficulty. I understood him to be saying that: given that the most crucial part of any theoretical chess book is the notation, which in English has so few symbols, there's not that much to learn to at least gain a large chunk of the knowledge available in a book. Lines of refutation will usually be given in notation too, so even if you can't read the gloss on them, you'll usually see the blind alley for yourself if you play it through. --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * NB re Zafiroblue05's comments, the guy I met contended that if you wanted to read the best books on advanced chess theory, a large proportion of them are available only in Russian, especially on extremely specific opening lines. --Dweller (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is no longer true, Dweller. Nowadays, a database of a couple of million games, with computer evaluations of both main openings and obscure sidelines, is included when you purchase a chess program. I regularly follow top level games live on the internet. Often, when the Grandmasters are in deep thought, trying do remember what the best move is in a certain position, the online commenters have already started up their Fritz or Rybka and they all know that the position has occured before in, say, Karpov-Gik, Moscow, 1968 and that White has an advantage. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. If you want to read up on a specific opening, say the Sicilian Defence, how easy is it to follow an analysis of what's a good idea or a bad one? I'd imagine the database is rather non editorial, unlike a book that'll push a POV. --Dweller (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to understand an opening, you'd still need a book, or some other written text, that explains, for example, how in the Taimanov Sicilian Black avoids committing and waits for White to show his hand. But this type of general information does not go out of date very fast, so you don't need the newest of the newest publications for it. Databases can give concrete lines and variations annotated with chess punctuation, where something like "Nf6! (ΔNxe4) -+" means "playing the Knight to f6, with the idea of taking on e4, is a good move and Black is better". Computers may also give an evaluation like "+1.00" or ("-1.00"), which means that White (or Black) has an advantage that's worth about 1 pawn. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

-al
One thing I still find confusing in English is the use of the suffix "-al". Is there any rhyme or reason why people say "electric motor", but "electrical circuit"? &mdash; Sebastian 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Electric motor" is the way that most people say it, I believe, but "electrical" in front of circuit is a matter of preference. I would just as soon say "electric circuit."  In most cases, I would use "electric" without the 'al'.  Someone will have to check to see if I am correct on this, but my thinking is that "electric" is generally used with physical things (electric stove, electric train, electric socket), whereas "electrical" is used with concepts, such as electrical engineering.  I hope that wasn't too confusing -- Falconus p  t   c 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that makes sense for electric/electrical. I guess one can say that a motor is more physical than a circuit (unless you happen to be part of a 220 V circuit). Now, my question was actually meant more general: There are many more such words, and I never know which have the "-al", and which don't. E.g., that we say "mathematical" instead of "mathematic" fits to your explanation, but is it "algebraic" or "algebraical"? (Hint: see previous question.) &mdash; Sebastian 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The OED has this to say on algebraical: Of or relating to algebra, in which algebra occurs; involving or using, dealing with or treating algebra. (Formerly used = ALGEBRAIC, but prop. disting. as an objective from possessive genitive: an algebraic symbol, an algebraical treatise.) This may also be of interest: electrical adj. 3. = ELECTRIC adj. 3a. Electric is now more usual in this sense: thus electric fence and electric guitar are more usual than electrical fence and electrical guitar. However, when a broad category is involved, electrical tends to be preferred: electrical equipment, electrical machinery rather than electric equipment, electric machinery. This may mean that, e.g., electrical equipment is thought of more as equipment in some way involving electricity than equipment actually operated by electricity. Algebraist 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - what does "but prop. disting. as an objective from possessive genitive" mean? &mdash; Sebastian 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Properly distinguishing as..."; not sure I understand exactly what was intended, but see Genitive for "objective genitive" etc.... AnonMoos (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it! So, to use the examples of the genitive page, we say "a centennial war", but "Confucian ethics". &mdash; Sebastian 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We see this distinction with historic/al. We go to a/an historic site to see things of historical interest, not an historical site to see things of historic interest.  Ironical, isn't it?  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Too, too ironic. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are a few comments on how I use some of these words.
 * You'd say an "electric toothbrush" (operated by electricity) but "electrical engineer" (specializing in the field of electricity). I say "electrical appliance," possibly because I don't have an image in mind of electricity flowing through a particular appliance - the appliance is unspecified. I only say "electrical storm."
 * I know that I would usually say theoretical (as in "the theoretical underpinnings of the field"), but I would say theoretic in set-theoretic (relating to set theory).
 * I've found a book that seems to be devoted mostly to the topic of -ic/-ical: Variation and Change in the Lexicon by Mark Kaunisto. You can get a partial preview of the book on Google Books. 128.32.238.145 (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How interesting. I'd never noticed that an electric toothbrush is one kind of electrical appliance.  Some of these words exist in one form only: demographic (never demographical; but there is demographically); inimical (never inimic); et al. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese 个: gè vs. ge
On this page (http://www.livemocha.com/learn/Mandarin%20Chinese/l:211/e:1291#40) I saw the phrase "zhè ɡe nǚ rén zài chē lǐ. " Other places, I saw 个 spelled as gè (fourth tone instead of fifth). When do you know when to use fourth or fifth tone with 个? Yakeyglee (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You certainly have to pronounce it with 4th tone in words such as 个体. As a measure word, you'd probably pronounce it with 5th tone. But to be honest, at least to my ears, the 5th tone sounds quite similar to the 4th, just a bit shorter and lower, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. &mdash; Sebastian 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know your level of Chinese, so please don't take it personally if this is obvious to you: Many Chinese characters can be pronounced in more than one way, and the tone is the least of the confusions. Take "的" for instance, which is pronounced "de" most of the time, but "dì" in "目的". &mdash; Sebastian 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As a very loose rule of thumb, when 个 follows a second tone, it is more likely to be pronounced in the 4th tone than the 5th (neutral). Similarly, when 个 follows a 1st, 3rd or 4th tone, it is likely to be neutral. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that a general tone sandhi for 2+5 -> 2+4? &mdash; Sebastian 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be mistaken, but I think it may be pronounced gè by speakers with a Taiwan accent, and ge in a mainland Chinese accent. Also, some transliterations ignore all or most neutral tones, and transcribe characters with their original tones, even though they may not be pronounced that way.128.32.238.145 (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, yes (though I never knew there was a phrase to describe it). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that true, or is it only because the underlying (original) tone of ge is the fourth tone? 128.32.238.145 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have found a more accurate answer than I did.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on Mandarin Chinese Prepositions
I found the three following sentences to contain the same prepositional meaning in English (being "at the") but are all phrased with two different sets of characters. Does the object that the people are "at" change what preposition you use? Could somebody please explain this to me?

The sentences: 我坐在桌子前. = I am at the table. 我在门口. = I am at the door. 我在楼边. = I am at the building.

Source: livemocha.com

Yakeyglee (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Prepositions are one of the harder things to get a nuanced hold of when learning a foreign language. They're often used in surprising ways. It's rare to find a translation that covers all the meanings of a particular preposition. In Chinese, 在 is used for most circumstances referring to the relative placement of things (generally as a stative verb). In addition to this, there are other positional words that are used to describe the placement more specifically. In the first example, 前 implies that you are in front of the table - but it would be clumsy to translate it as "I am in front of the table", so we stick with the simpler "I am at the table", which conveys the same idiomatic meaning, even though it isn't word-for-word exact. In the second example, the literal meaning is "I am at the doorway (or even doorhole)." That doesn't sound like good English, so we translate it better. In reverse, we can't translate "I am at the table" as 我在桌子, because that doesn't sound right to a Chinese speaker - for a table, you have to specify where at the table you are: 桌子前 in front of the table 桌子上 on (top of) the table 桌子下 under(neath) the table.
 * Basically, your answer is "yes". It does change depending on the object, but that's a normal problem between languages. You have to get used to it, and the patterns will become clearer in your mind as you practise, make mistakes and make the right choices. Good Luck! Steewi (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How come we cannot make a page about ourselves.
How come we cannot make a page about ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahoofungirl (talk • contribs)


 * Because you (most likely) don't pass WP:NOTE. This isn't a question for the RefDesk.--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this is an encyclopedia. Forgive my rudeness, but what is so important about you that people hundreds of years from now will want to read about your life? Only notable subjects get pages. Not to mention, there is no way to verify what would be written in your own article. We can't just take your word for it. There is always the chance that you might embellish some things. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgive you, but it was a tad rude, GE. You're assuming the questioner is inherently non-notable.  For all we know, it might be Bill Clinton asking the question, and if he didn't already have an article, there'd be no reason why there shouldn't be one.  Even if they obey all the other rules about citing published sources, writing in an NPOV way etc, the main problem with people writing or contributing to their own articles is WP:CONFLICT.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If Bill Clinton has suddenly started referring to himself as "Yahoofungirl," I think someone should add the fact to his article posthaste. Deor (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a very plausible way for an ex-US male president to disguise his identity. Anyway, Yahoofungirl has already been made aware of Notability (people), so this question is verging on trolling. --  JackofOz (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can make a page about yourself, and have already started, I see, at User:Yahoofungirl. Perhaps you will someday even be joined by a Yahoofungi. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to provide some guidance for replies here: On the page Yahoofungirl wrote, which now has been deleted, she described herself as being 11 years of age. &mdash; Sebastian 03:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But we do have a page about ourselves? Maybe it's not an exemplary one, but still... A passer-by, 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest, though, it is a little circular: you're notable enough by our standards if you can find a source about you that is itself notable enough to be reliable by our standards (e.g., not your MySpace page). zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think the standard is rather higher than that. It wouldn't be hard to put together a reliably sourced article about me, but I'm still quite confident that I wouldn't (and shouldn't) pass the notability threshold. In fact, one of my rules of thumb for whether someone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to compare them to myself. If they aren't more notable than me, then they clearly fail to reach the required level of notability. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)