Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 February 2

= February 2 =

Need some help on classical Japanese/Chinese
We have a source listed on the An_Jung-geun article that is written in classical Japanese/Chinese without a translation and being used to back a claim. Specifically, that An Jung-geun worshiped the Emperor Meiji. The reference link is here: http://www.ndl.go.jp/site_nippon/kensei/shiryou/limage/Gazou_40_3.html Anyone feeling nice enough to help us out and prevent another fire from flaming up? Thanks in advance. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, how can someone's handwritten notes be used as a reference? Surely it does not fulfill "reliable sources".
 * Secondly, it is written in Japanese-style classical Chinese (using Kanji, but the grammar and word construction are often very Japanese). I might have a go at translating it, but it might be better to find someone well versed in classical Japanese. Strike that, it's just the title, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, this was written by the subject of the article himself and supposedly expresses his views on pan-Asianism, which is the topic of debate. Although An did not know Japanese so I am now forced to wonder about how much weight we should give it.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On East Ocean Peace: Preface
 * Success-unification and loss-breaking apart are eternal rules of change. In today's world, the East and West hemispheres are separated, and the different races are all different. They compete with each other, as if it was a daily meal. They research into dangerous weapons, above agriculture and commerce. New inventions such as electric cannons, flying boats or submarines are all machines that maim people and destroy life. The youths are trained to fight in fields of battle, many valuable lives are thrown away like sacrificial animals. So much so that we have rivers of blood and fields of flesh, which never ends. Naturally, humans value their lives and abhor death. What would a peaceful and orderly world look like? This thought chills my heart and bones. Fundamentally, from ancient times, the East Ocean people focus on literature and keep to their own country, and have never invaded Europe. On the five continents, man and beast, plant and water all know this. However, in the last few centuries, the European powers have forgotten their morals, and dedicate their time to violence, so as to create a spirit of competition and lose all inhibition. Among these, Russia takes it to the extreme. Their violence kills everywhere, in both Europe in the west and Asian in the east. Their evil fills up and their crime overflows. Gods and men are all angry.
 * Sorry for the shoddy expressions, but I think the meaning should be all there. Don't see anything about Meiji. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That answers that question then, I'll make sure to remove that specific claim. Thanks for your help!--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake to assume that it was a Japanese source simply because it came from the Diet Library! The title used a construction found in modern Japanese but not Chinese - but I guess could just as easily be classical Korean-Chinese grammar, or simply unusual classical Chinese grammar. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'East Ocean' is 東洋/Asia. Oda Mari (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In modern Chinese 東洋 is Japan, though it is also understood as "East Asia" in the appropriate context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't know. I'm glad to know that. BTW, according to this (Sorry it's Japanese), what An Jung-geun thought as 東洋 is China, Korea, Thai, Burma and Japan. So as User:PalaceGuard008 wrote above, I think East Asia is the right translation of this 東洋. Oda Mari (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information Oda Mari - I wasn't sure exactly what countries the source was referring to: I'd assumed Japan at first, but the rest of the passage seemed to encompasse at least Korea and China as well. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Feminin Ships
Why are ships usually refered to in English as she's ? Keria (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to gender-specific pronoun, this is unknown (and in decline in any case). Algebraist 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ships are referred as she due to Navy tradition, as the navy regards ships possessing souls. Also, it is tradition, to refer to ships, countries, and some other entities in the female form. Yeltsinfan (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume the tradition arose because the sailors' lives depended on their taking care to maintain the vessel properly. If they regarded it as a woman, they would look after it with greater respect than if they regarded it as a mere machine.--Shantavira|feed me 09:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Odd. My experience of many men's relationship with machines vs. women suggests exactly the opposite level of care/respect would apply.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, times have changed.--Shantavira|feed me 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because they had female figureheads? hotclaws 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. After following the links provided by Algebraist I arrived on an article discussing why Lloyd's had to revert its decision to refer to a ship as 'it' instead of 'she'. Captian Fred Boer e-mailed the paper from his vessel, saying: "As long as ships of every size and type require lots of paint to look good they will be referred to as a 'she', at least by me." Hmmm ... I think the soul idea sounds better. Keria (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OED: Used (instead of it) of things to which female sex is conventionally attributed.   a. Of a ship or boat. Also (now chiefly in colloquial and dialect use), often said of a carriage, a cannon or gun, a tool or utensil of any kind; occas. of other things.

The use dates back to the 14th C, and the OED suggests it might arise from the early translations from the French, where the words were grammatically feminine. I guess the tradition stuck. Gwinva (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The representative that vs the representative who
Is "the representative that made the suggestion" incorrect? What if the representative is an automaton? Seans Potato Business 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not incorrect. Many people, however, prefer to use who/whom as a relative pronoun when the antecedent denotes one or more human beings. With regard to an automaton, I suppose it depends on how human you want to consider him/her/it. I'd tend to use who for C-3PO, I think. Deor (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You see it both ways. See the AHD usage note here. Me, I like to use "who" with people usually, but there's no "rule" for it. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The AHD usage note that MB directs us to is buried in a lot of text about other matters (including who versus whom). Here is the relevant part, which along with the rest of the article puts things badly (note the distracting use of restriction!):
 * "Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the woman that wanted to talk to you or the woman who wanted to talk to you."
 * Other sources agree. To illustrate concerning restriction, compare these:
 * Restrictive (narrows down who is referred to by the student):
 * "Sandy is the student who topped the class."
 * Or:
 * "Sandy is the student that topped the class."
 * Unrestrictive (informs us about Sandy, but does not narrow down who is referred to):
 * "Sandy, who topped the class, went to Oxford."
 * But never:
 * "*Sandy, that topped the class, went to Oxford."
 * A parallel distinction is more frequently made between which and that. For all of this, see English_relative_clauses. Elsewhere in that article things are not so clear, unfortunately.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding an Acronym
I want to add the acronym: TEAM - Totally Engaged and Meaningful. I have completed an extensive search of the internet including acronym finder and have not found it anywhere. This is a term I created to use at work in our TEAM development approach. How do you add an acronym to Wikipedia? What else can you assist me with in submitting this acronym?

Carolrainey (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)carolrainey


 * An acronym that you have made up yourself is not suitable as the subject of a Wikipedia article, since (as you have found out in your Web search) there are no reliable sources independent of yourself through which information about it can be verified. Deor (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I need help remembering the title of a short story.
It's something about a sibling relationship where the older sibling is jealous of the younger (brother, I think). And the older sibling keeps abusing the younger sibling and then by accident the younger sibling is hurt really badly (or dead?) by the older. The younger brother had some sort of a disability (mental and physical, I think, maybe cerebral palsy?) and so the family devoted all their energy to him. His given name was someting very pretentious like Thomas Jefferson (I don't think it was that, it might have been something religious), but, when he was born and they saw that he had a disability, the older brother gave him a nickname that everyone was more comfortable with. I believe the story's title was the younger brother's nickname. The story was told from the point of view of the older brother. Does this ring a bell for anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.219.105 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's The Scarlet Ibis, where the younger brother's name is Doodle.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds entirely correct. Doodle's proper name is William Armstrong, which was only given to him at three months old. However, the title refers to the scarlet ibis (bird) cared for by Doodle, which is symbolic of his own disability. While I am pretty sure that Doodle was born with his disability, its true name is never revealed (or even known by the narrator/his family). Your recollection of abuse by the brother may actually be recalling Doodle's rides in a cart pulled by Brother and the occasional upsets. Brother does, however, strongly urge Doodle to accomplish physical activities that are very strenuous, but supposedly impossible according to medical authorities. Other themes you may recall are swimming lessons, exposing Doodle to his infant coffin as punishment, rowing lessons, and Doodle's death in the storm after being abandoned by Brother. Freedomlinux (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)