Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 22

= December 22 =

A good way to learn to write Korean?
I bought 'Korean for Dummies' about a year ago but was busy with other things so I didn't read it at the time. Just recently I opened it because I wanted to start on Korean again but it turns out that 'Korean for Dummies' does not include any information on how to actually write Korean. Apparently the publishers do not consider writing to be an important part of learning a language with a different alphabet. Can anyone suggest any other resources, book- (that I can get in the UK) or web-based to help with this? Cheers, JoeTalkWork 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you checked out our article Hangul? It's the most logical writing system I'm aware of, so it isn't hard to learn. &mdash; Sebastian 05:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was meant to be logical, but since it was invented in the 10th Century, lots of sound changes have appeared in the language, so you end up with sandhi, which even happens between words.--KageTora (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point! However, these problems are not a problem of Hangul alone. Even the much more recent Yale Romanization has sandhi problems. &mdash; Sebastian 04:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Korean have more than one writing system? There is also Hanja. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While our article on Hanja says it's still required (without a citation since February), I heard otherwise - unless you want to read old texts, of course. &mdash; Sebastian 04:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Make your strokes go from left to right and then top to bottom. When writing a character, pretend that you are doing so in a little box.121.190.163.183 (talk)

Help needed with verification using RS in Italian
Please see Articles_for_deletion/Gabriella_Ambrosio.

A bunch of potential RS in Italian have been found at Google - help discovering if they establish notability would be great and even better would be adding such verification to the article. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Billigen Kieker ("Das Bild Lebt!")
This is from the text of "Das Neue Reich"—an undated series (ca. 1935-38?) of 156 Nazi propaganda photos, 7.7 x 5.5 cm., distributed with cigarette packs of the brands Club, Liga, and Sanct Georg. For a surcharge of 75 Pf. the collector could buy an album for storing the photos at the tobacconist's, and for a mere 25 Pf. could purchase a "Billigen Kieker" that enlarged the photo 3.5x and produced a 3D effect. Near as I can figure out, it was like a cheap View-master (perhaps like the devices appearing on the Stereoscopy page?). I'm looking for confirmation and what to call it in an English-language translation. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it was called a "Billiger Kieker" ("Billigen Kieker" is accusative case), rather than a "Kieker" that is described as being "billig" (cheap)? "Kieker" sounds like it must come from "kieken", which is (at least) Berlin dialect (and maybe more general Low German, I don't know) for "look", so a Kieker is a looker or viewer. —Angr 14:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I quote:
 * "Wir empfehlen, die Bilder mit dem >>Billigen Kieker<< zu betrachten, welcher 3 1/2 mal vergrössert und echte Fotos plastisch zeigt."
 * The printed text's quite clear; the card's in near mint condition, but I'm an archivist, not a collector. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * N.B. As for dialect (brace yourselves): I don't know proper German, but in Yiddish, biliker kuker (the latter in "Western Yiddish" i.e. in Germany and Austria, pronounced like the German Kieker) means "cheap viewing device." -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)''
 * Okay, "billigen" isn't accusative after all, it's the weak form of the dative used after the dative definite article "dem". I think it's probably just a descriptive phrase "cheap viewer" rather than a special name for the device. According to LEO, Kieker can mean binoculars, spy glasses, or field glasses, and German Wikipedia (de:Kieker) also says it's a North German word for a telescope or binoculars. But since it literally just means "thing for looking (through)" I wouldn't be surprised if it also referred to a ViewMaster-like device. Here's an example of a viewing device for slides or negatives being called a "Kieker". I'd just translate it "cheap viewer". —Angr 14:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Angr that "cheap viewer" would be best. If you'd like to dig further, the pictures are called "Zigarettenbilder" and the Kieker you'll probably find as a "Betrachter", "Raumbilderbetrachter" or "Stereobildbetrachter". Here's an older more elaborate one .  The one they describe was most likely cardboard.  If you skim to item 11734 and click on the camera and through the "Bildergalerie" there's another one.  - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's better not to translate the "Billiger Kieker" at all (or to give the English meaning "cheap viewer" in a footnote and keep the German term in the text); I have never heard of that particular device, but from what you've told us, it sounds like "Billiger Kieker" is actually the product name (because the "Billig" is capitalized, and because the specifically say "der Billige Kieker", not just "ein billiger Kieker"). What they are trying to say with "Wir empfehlen etc" is not "Use any cheap junk to view our pictures" but "use our fine product CheapJunk(TM) to view our pictures". Just a guess, of course - I can't find a reference at the moment that "Billiger Kieker" is indeed the product name, but I'd be mightily surprised if it were otherwiese -- Ferkelparade &pi; 10:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that I've never studied German though typed the query text verbatim from the source: is it signifcant that the first word is Billigen rather than Billige or Billiger as some responses (above) have stated? At the given price, the item may well have been of cardboard and designed for sole use with this collectible series. Note that the enhanced view was plastisch so perhaps my wording("3D") was misleading if merely "lifelike" was intended? Apropos the technology: each card had a single photo image, not a duo (as I've seen elsewhere). -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To your first question, no it's not significant. It's simple grammar that "billigen" is the only form the word "billig" can take after the word "dem". When removed from its grammatical context, it reverts to the nominative singular form "billiger Kieker". LEO reveals that "3-dimensional" is one of the meanings of "plastisch", but I don't know how a 3D view was effected with only one photo per image. —Angr 14:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, case grammar—still to be mastered (as my Babel boxes betray). Indeed, LEO was my penultimate stop before posting here, and I suppose I was hasty and rather imprudent in latching on to the "3D" defo rather than any of the others. As the (four) photos came without even a cheap viewer, the special effect remains a mystery for now. -- Thanks, all! Deborahjay (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In northern German, "de:Kieker" means telescope or binoculars. I knew the term only from maritime German, but it's certainly northern German, and the German Wikipedia claims it's a general term there. I'm still not sure why the word "Billigen" is capitalized--maybe a brand name or something like that? Would that fit? Either way, I'd understand it to be dialect for a cheap telescope/cheap binoculars. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The dialect would be "Marketingese". The nautical "kieker" would not give you a plastic image.  "Kieken"  is Platdüütsch for "look".  The fact that "billig" is both capitalized and inflected should not be over emphasized.  The thing was probably either labeled "Billiger Kieker" or simply "Kieker".  Example "Billiger Jakob" is a term used to describe something like a Dollar store (N.B. this term can be used in a derogatory manner).  Both terms would be capitalized and you'd say s.o. bought s. th. "Beim Billigen Jakob."  This is language use by people trying to sell a product, not an academic text.  Both Angr's suggestion for translating "cheap viewer" or Ferkelparade's version leaving the expression in German and putting the English in brackets behind it would work here.  If Deborahjay actually has images one could check what type of stereo vision effect was used.  3D images were all the rage before color TV and still had a lot of "ooh, aah" effect when I was a kid visiting my aunt.  Since 25 Pf. was not that much money, even back when the item in question was sold, it is highly unlikely that they employed 2 images and lenses. (I have an old German cookie recipe calling for "yeast for 5 Pf." for comparison value.)  Although the southeast corner of Germany has traditionally been known to produce excellent lenses, they have never been that cheap AFAIK.  The images very likely have some yellowish and blue  or red and green shading/lines and can be viewed through glasses/viewers that have plastic films in green/cyan and red.  I was wondering whether plastic could be produced that cheaply back then, but cellophane or "Zellglas" in German had been around for a while and the ingredients would not have been hard to come by and locally available. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Numbers in a Sentence
First, my understanding of 'correct' English is that for values less than 10, you should use the corresponding words (one, two, three, etc.) and not the number (1, 2, 3, etc.). For values greater than or equal to ten, use the number (10, 11, 12, etc.). Second, my understanding is that you should not begin a sentence with a number (1, 2, 3, etc.). Instead you should use the corresponding word (One, Two, Three, etc.). Assuming the above is correct, what do you do in the following example: "Ten out of 11 of my pens are black.". Is that correct, or should it be "Ten out of eleven of my pens are black." or "10 out of 11 of my pens are black.". This is for a somewhat formal report. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Manual of Style has a pretty good treatment of the topic here and here. To answer the question, your rule of thumb is a good one—single-digit numbers get spelled out—and eleven out of eleven copyeditors would make that "Ten out of eleven of my pens are black" after making sure you didn't mean "Ten out of my eleven pens are black." You try to maintain consistency within a sentence, going with numerals or letters all the way, if possible.

There are exceptions to almost every rule, though, and the rules are different for different contexts. It's amazing how quickly you can get wrapped around the axle trying to keep it all straight. My advice is to get whatever stylebook your report should use and follow it. If you can use any stylebook, I recommend The Chicago Manual of Style ($55), which you can subscribe to on line ($30/yr). --Milkbreath (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many details of writing in English where multiple styles exist. Both the Wikipedia and the Chicago manuals of style exist for the purpose of recommending specific styles, and of you're happy to follow those recommendations that's fine.  But it should be acknowledged that other styles may exist and may also be correct.  In particular, in the writing of numbers, there tends to be a variation between technical and literary writing, with technical writing favoring the use of digits -- especially if the number comes from a count, measurement, or computation (like "10 out of 11") -- and literary writing favoring the use of words.  General-purpose writing, like magazines, may fall in between.  The original poster referred to a rule that the numbers you write in words are those less than 10: some who use such a rule set the cutoff larger, perhaps at 100, and the number on the boundary may go either way.  So if this is for a formal report, it may matter what sort of report it is.


 * If you are following the rule about not starting sentences with a number written in digits -- again this is a stylistic choice -- and you find it produces something awkward, often the solution is to rearrange the sentence.


 * --Anonymous, 19:22 UTC, December 22, 2008.


 * This whole matter was hugely and wearyingly controversial at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM, many months ago. Yes, there are various standards and rules proposed by style guides; and no, we cannot settle the matter rationally at Wikipedia. Not as things stand. Usually a style guide delivers a simple guideline, such as: "Don't start a sentence with a number in figures; use words, or refashion the sentence". Well and good; but obtuse and inflexible. It is ridiculous to insist on this rigidly: it will often entrain other anomalies ruled against by other guidelines, and refashioning is not always available (when transcribing a speech, for example). Look at this:
 * ... in the 19th century and earlier. 20th-century advances in engineering ...
 * There is nothing wrong with it, because the full stop cannot be misread as a decimal point or as anything else distracting. MOS says: "When the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth‑century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century". Why? Why ever nineteenth‑century painting? As one who has been a major contributor to MOS, I have argued against flagrant contempt for MOS and its editors (see this discussion); but here I aim simply to illustrate the difficulties of the task.
 * This too is to be judged perfectly sound, except in the windy assizes of pedantry:
 * 58 of the 130 companies were insolvent within a year. 40 have now been wound up, and 18 are in the hands of receivers.
 * Rules of thumb, yes. But they are nothing more. Consistency is golden, so such blunt precepts deserve respect; but we need to fathom first their raisons d'être, and respond to them also.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N  oetica! T– 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 216.239.234.196, I was tempted to address you as "Two hundred sixteen, period, two hundred thirty-nine, etc." By setting off "correct," you gave me the impression you saw daylight between "correct" and "sensible," which is a good instinct when it comes to these things.  I agree with Noetica about a pragmatic approach to rules of thumb.  Writing "ten of the 11 edits are sheer gibberish," however accurate the opinion might be, will tend to imply that you're not able to look at a sentence in context.   --- OtherDave (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)