Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 13

= March 13 =

Chinese phrasing for how a character is composed?
Okay, now it's my turn to ask one. What's the Chinese phrasing for describing how a Chinese character is composed? I'm thinking of something like "join 金 (metal) with 同 (together) to produce 銅 (copper)". How would that normally be worded in colloquial Chinese, say if this were a difficult character you were describing to someone you were speaking with? Or in formal Chinese, say in a book teaching children how to write? Thanks, — kwami (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I had to colloquially describe the character to someone, I would break it down into its radical components and say something like this: 铜，铜器的铜，左边是金部，金属的金. 右边是同，相同的同. 65.96.127.245 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In a book I might expect something like this: 金字旁加“同”组成“铜”. The radical name plus the character. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Colloquially I might also simply say 金属的铜 or 青铜的铜 -- "铜 as in the metal", or "铜 as in bronze".
 * More generally, some characters which commonly cause confusion - especially surnames and other characters commonly used in names - have colloquial names such as "草头黄" for "黄" - "Grass head 黄" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're just trying to distinguish it from others you can say 金字旁的铜, or like 65.96 says, refer to words that use the character. You could also describe it as 金子跟同学的同那一字. Steewi (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, y'all. I'm familiar with some of these, so let me give you the context:

In the article on rongorongo which I've been working on, a few early researchers got recitations from some Easter Island elders who claimed to be able to read the old tablets. However, the resulting "creation chants" were almost gibberish, had nothing to do with Polynesian creation mythology, and have been no help in deciphering rongorongo. A couple of the more intelligible verses are,
 * Grove by copulating with Trunk produced the ashwood tree.
 * Killing by copulating with Sting Ray produced the shark.

One of my references suggests that these, besides being badly translated, might actually be old rules for how to compose rongorongo characters. A better translation might be,
 * By joining 'Grove' into 'Trunk', that the ashwood tree come forth.
 * By joining 'Killing' into 'Sting Ray', that the shark come forth.

The author compares this to Chinese characters, where you might say something like "By joining 金 with 同, so that 銅 results". I was wondering if something like this was actually said in Chinese, or if it were just something that potentially could be said. 金字旁加“同”组成“铜” isn't too far off, but I'm looking for something that better illustrates the parallel, if such phrasing exists. — kwami (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mnemonics exist for certain characters, see Biang. 65.96.127.245 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From a Google search, I found this "real life" examples: "“同”字加上“金字旁”就是“铜”". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think the biang biang article will do nicely, and maybe the real example too. — kwami (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, in the biang article, the line 掛個丁丁叫馬杠 from the ditty got left out of the translation. — kwami (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a native too, my answer: we might have some 'phrases' for straightforward characters, but we would most likely describe characters like spelling it. The common surname 李 may be described as 木子李 (the structure is easy), while 偉 may be 偉大的偉 (the word is easy). Even some easy characters are difficult to describe, if natives bother to, like another common surname 陳. I'd say it's 姓陳的陳, or, orthographically, 左(邊是)阜, 右(邊是)東. I don't think there are fast and hard rules for this.--61.92.239.192 (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called "耳东陈". Where does 阜 come in?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't log in :). Yes, that's also correct, though I can't remember that until you said it. 阜 is the radical. 耳 is more common and colloquial.--Fitzwilliam (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki checking request at Legal code (municipal)
Not sure if this is the right place for this - I thought of Wikipedia:Translation but this isn't a translation request per se...

A bit of background: the Legal code article started off being about the philosophical concept of "code" as opposed to "law". It then somehow morphed into an article about municipal codes - such as building codes. This was clearly not what the majority of links to that article were contemplating. So I moved Legal code to Legal code (municipal), and redirected Legal code to a new article Code (law), which is about code law, such as the Civil Code.

In this process, I noticed that many of the interwiki links on the old legal code article, now at Legal code (municipal), were about code law and not municipal codes - I have moved the ones which I could determine to be so from the foreign language articles. There are a few, though, that I'm not sure about. Could I ask the experts on this page to take a look at de:Gesetzbuch, lt:Kodeksas, pl:Kodeks (zbiór praw), ru:Кодекс, and sv:Lagbok to see whether they are about municipal codes (like building codes) or code law (like the Civil Code)? If the latter, the link should probably be moved across to Code (law).

If it helps, mentions of the Justinian Code probably indicates the latter. Many thanks, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The German article was about code (law). I've added the appropriate interwiki links. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Sweater
Why is that thick cotton shirt called a sweater? Is it because it makes the wearer sweat? -- MusicalConnoisseur  Got Classical? 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dictionary.com lists the etymology as "sweat + er", dating from the late 1800s, so it sounds like you're right. That's what I've always assumed, too. Does seem a little weird, though; most people wear sweaters to normalize their temperatures. --Masamage ♫ 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know where I've put my temperature-normalizer? Hmm, doesn't have quite the same effect, does it.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In British English they are called 'jumpers', which makes even less apparent sense. FreeMorpheme (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we go, from the OED:
 * Clothes in which a horse or a man in training is exercised, to produce profuse sweating. (now obsolete)


 * A woollen vest or jersey worn in rowing or other athletic exercise, originally in order to reduce one's weight; now commonly put on also before or after exercise to prevent taking cold.


 * Hence a similar garment for general informal wear.


 * So the derivation is almost exactly that of more recent 'sweats' (sweat pants, sweat shirt, etc.)


 * As for 'jumper', it seems that was originally a 'jump', which may have been a corruption of 'jupe'. — kwami (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to http://www.io.com/~dierdorf/ww-39.html, jumper is derived from Arabic jubbah (a long open coat) by way of Spanish aljuba and French juppa. There is a similar German word "Joppe" of identical etymology. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a few more interesting bits mentioned in the link given. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Marines: must it always be capitalized?
I have heard (from several friends in the Marines) that the word "Marines" is always supposed to be capitalized. I was wondering ... is this true? Is that a "real" rule of grammar? Or is that just something that Marines do as a symbol / convention of respect, etc.? (I am talking about US Marines.) And, furthermore, does this mean that the word "Marine" is always a proper noun and never a common noun? Thus, "John was the oldest Marine at the party" ... is that a proper noun or common noun? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC))
 * The US Marine Corps is a proper noun, and a 'Marine' is derived from that. It's a common noun, but like 'American', the capital letter shows you it's derived from a proper noun. Perhaps the same is true in Britain for the Royal Marines? However, in the generic sense, a marine officer is simply an officer serving aboard a ship, and you'll often see "the marines" in this sense. Capitalization in such cases is often irregular. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to capitalize if you mean "Semper Fi" jarhead, as in your example: "John was the oldest Marine at the party". Always, no exceptions, yes. It's not grammar, it's style, by the way, and it's not about respect, it's about typographical convention and the meaning of a capital letter. It does seem unfair, though. We don't capitalize "sailor" or "soldier" (but we can "private" or "seaman" if we mean a particular individual). Every Marine is a Marine in a stricter sense than every member of the U.S. Army is a soldier or every Navy man a sailor. You could call an admiral "sailor" and he would not be at all insulted, but it would be unusual, whereas the Commandant of the Marine Corps is a Marine, pure and simple. It's a bit of an anomaly, to be sure, now you've made me look at it.


 * It's pretty rare to see the lowercase generic "marine" these days, because all our marines are Marines, if you take my meaning. Before they were a separate branch of the armed forces, you could talk about lowercase marines serving on board ships, and you still would if you were writing about those bygone days. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost always capitalized when referring to a specific marine corps such as the U.S. Marine Corps. For example: My brother is a marine. It is a generic term. Unless you mean specifically My brother is a (British Royal) Marine. Then it should be capitalized. But since my dad is a Marine, yes you should always fucking capitalize Marine. But if and I think my father would use a term like "little grammar bitch" no, it doesn't always have to be capitalized from a purely gramatical standpoint. hoo rah.


 * You've got me worrying now. How is your second sentence an example of the principle you expounded in your first?  Unless, perhaps, it's an example of one of the exceptions I infer to exist from "almost always".  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no hard and fast "rules" for things like this. There are only official styles adopted by organizations and professions. The U.S. military might establish a style that "Marine" is to be capitalized when referring to a member of the USMC. But your workplace may differ. My advice is that if you are in doubt, trust an authoritative source like the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which uses lower case for "a marine" in all circumstances. (Compare the entries for "marine" and "Realtor.") -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely unrelated, on May 19, 1994 the Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton decreed the word Sailor when used in Naval correspondence and referring to Sailors of the U.S. Navy – Sailor will be capitalized. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker in October 2003 and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper in May 2004 decreed the same for the words Soldier and Airman respectively. Because Marine (when referring to a person in the Marine Corps) is a proper noun it will always be capitalized.

Badge in Spanish
How do you say "badge" as in a policeman's badge in the Spanish language? Is it credencial? Does it vary by country? Do policemen in Spanish speaking countries carry badges or some other form of identification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.91.172 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And how would you say, estate, such as my father's estate or I live in Redwood Estates, or I inherited a large estate as in porperty/land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.91.172 (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Placa is the precise translation for badge. Identificación could also be used, especially if no plaque is present. This last term is the most frequent here in Argentina. I don't know what's the case elsewhere.


 * Estate is a really hard word to translate into Spanish. Propiedad inmueble is a generic translation. Bienes raíces or bienes inmuebles are two technical terms for it. Finca and hacienda are more specific than propiedad; the former could apply to a rural or urban property, while the latter is more or less specific to rural estates.
 * Establecimiento is also another option, especially for productive rural properties, at least here in Argentina. Pallida  Mors  14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Either/or
An LSAT review books offers this as an answer choice: "Either Wilma or Vivian's appointment is at 10AM." However, because "Vivian is only restricted to the 11AM or 4PM appointments," the answer choice is ruled out. Is that how you usually use "either...or..." in a sentence?! Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The words following either and or should normally be syntactically parallel: "Either Wilma's or Vivian's appointment …" Since it's a distracter rather than a supposedly correct answer—and since the question doesn't appear to be a test of grammar anyway—I'm not sure that it matters much in this instance, though. Deor (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't even notice that error, but you're correct. What I was wondering, however, is that even if Vivian's appointment isn't at 10AM, that sentence can still be true, no? Does it on the LSAT only refer to the case where both Wilma's and Vivian's appointments can be at 10AM? Imagine Reason (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I'd failed to see what you were asking about (perhaps because this is the Language desk rather than the Logic desk). My take is that unless it is established somewhere that Wilma also cannot have a 10 A.M. appointment, the sentence is not logically flawed. There's no logical error in saying "Either John or Mary is dead" even if it has been established that one of them is in fact alive. (By the way, the only in the book's sentence explaining the incorrectness of the answer is redundant. I guess lawyers need be neither logicians nor prose stylists.) Deor (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, you're right again. Thank you. Imagine Reason (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The "only" is not only redundant, but being out of the place it would belong to if it weren't redundant, it's misleading.  It suggests that he's restricted to 11AM or 4PM, but not restricted to any other possible times, which, as well as being one of the best non-sequiturs I've seen in many a long moon, gives the initial false impression that he has a wider choice of times than he actually has.  If it belongs anywhere, it belongs before 11AM, but it would still be well, wrong there.  What I'm really saying is that if you're going to rob a bank, it's better to take only $100 rather than $10,000. (Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night ...) --  JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, may be; what's a long moon? But you're right about everything except Vivian's sex. We can't just dismiss the whole problem by saying "it's only a distracter", either. The whole test should be in regular English, not some garbled junk. As for the logic, logic per se does not apply in language, which has its own logic. "Either Wilma or Vivian's appointment is at 10AM" means that only one is, and if we already know which the sentence is nonsense. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Long moon"? Hmm, maybe I was confusing "many a long day" with "many moons".  But I rather like my new unconsciously spawned brain-child, so thanks for drawing it to my attention, Milkbreath. Vivian's sex?   Vivian Campbell, Sir Vivian Richards, Vivian Stanshall, and Vivian Ellis were all males last time I looked under their dresses.  Oscar Wilde named one his sons Vyvyan.  So while it is predominantly used as a female name, let us pay due regard to the minority groups among us (I refer to those poor put-upon men named Beverley, Kay, Vivian, Kerry, Patrice, Joán, et al).   Say, that gives me a great idea!  I'm going to create a literary character named "Vivian Longmoon".  You heard it here first.  Vladimir Nabokov would be proud of me.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to tell us that we can discover your real name by playing around with the letters of "Vivian Longmoon"? How can that be, when there's no j, c, or k in it? Deor (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention f or z. But how transparent of me.  You've guessed it.  My real name is Anvil von Ooming (my Urlicht-affected parents worshipped the Norse god Thor and used the Anvil Chorus from Il Trovatore as their personal anthem), but I'm thinking of changing it to Olga von Von Mini.  (I'll explain the double "von" thusly:  I'm descended from an Italian family named Mini that moved to Germany and was ennobled back in the dim dark ages.  Rothbart von Mini was mixed up in some local revolution, was deprived of his aristocratic estates and titles, and was exiled to Iceland via Mongolia, but nevertheless had his surname registered in Reykjavik as "Von Mini".  My great-grandfather Lars Von Mini moved back to Germany, and was re-ennobled, as Lars von Von Mini.  Please stop me any time now ...)  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you quite certain you are not the famous Dutch-Italian star of silent movies, Vino Van Looming? - Nunh-huh 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I deny that with the last breath in my body. Anyone for tennis?  Speaking of tennis and men with girly names, I often read (past tense) that the originator of the tennis phrase "Grand Slam" was a journalist named Allison Danzig, and I always glibly assumed she was a woman.  It turns out she wasn't ... er, he wasn't.  It further turned out that it wasn't even he what done it (the coining), but John Kieran, and I would love to be able to report, despite contrary appearances, that he was in fact a woman - but in fact he wasn't.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe Vivian accidentally made an appointment for a time when they are not actually available, overbooking the time slot. --Lambiam 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or maybe it's just the review book. I've not found one GMAT or LSAT review book that includes fewer than several errors, but this one easily takes the crown. After every group of questions is a list of the answers, which ALWAYS have a few deviations from the explanations of solutions that then immediately follow. Someone must have been terrible drunk or absent when they put together the book. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but -- to be fair -- the statements that you quote in the original post are probably taken from a larger context. It might be helpful to provide all of that context ... that is, the entire question.  Usually, those LSAT-type questions involve a lot of scenarios (conditions) happening simultaneously.  Which allows the examinee to include or exclude certain facts.  Which ultimately allows the examinee to deduce the correct answer.  So, I assume that the original post was accompanied by other facts / sentences / conditions --- which would provide more context to the LSAT practice question and the original poster's question.  Otherwise, the answer to your question is "yes".  That is indeed how one would normally use "either / or" in a sentence.  To parse: this sentence ("Either Wilma's or Vivian's appointment is at 10AM.") ... is a short-hand / abbreviated version of saying "Either Wilma's appointment is at 10AM or Vivian's appointment is at 10AM."  In plain English, one of these individuals has a 10:00 appointment and the other does not.  Contrast logically with this: "Wilma's or Vivian's appointment is at 10AM."   This new sentence (deleting the word "either") now means something altogether different.  The new sentence is a short-hand / abbreviation version of saying "Wilma's appointment is at 10AM ... or Vivian's appointment is at 10AM ... or both appointments are at 10AM."  Thus, if we delete the term "either" ... we are left with three possible scenarios: one lady has the 10AM slot, the other lady has it, or perhaps they both have it.  I assume that Wikipedia has articles on the disjunctive "or" ... which can be either inclusive (one component or the other component or perhaps both) or exclusive (one component or the other, but never both).   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

search engines as concordancers, or free online ones
We're all familiar, I take it, with using Google as a sort of basic concordancer. You can search for a string in quotes (e.g. "raining cats and") and see what words follow and precede the phrase. Has anyone systematised this? Are there any research papers about the technique? Or are there any good free concordancers that would be usable with learners? An acquaintance of mine who is teaching English wants to use one with his students learning the language. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For web work, try Webcorp . For desktop use with hand-built corpora, I believe Laurence Anthony's AntConc  is still the last word in freeware (has some issues with certain encodings, but that shouldn't be a problem if you're just using English).  However, your colleague will also want to consult some of the abundant literature on data-driven learning and the promises and pitfalls of providing students with direct access to raw linguistic data. -- Visviva (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthographic usage: centimeter and centimetre
There is a anonymous contributor changing some units thinking there is an orthographic error. For instance, centimetre has been changed into centimeter. In fact both are in the English language, the first is British usage while the second is American. Is there an official usage in this wikipedia or is there discrimination against Britsh and Canadian users? What to do when someone is systematically changing the units like that? Pierre cb (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENGVAR. The spellings used in an article should be consistent, and an editor should not change British to American, or vice versa, without good reason. Such changes can be reverted with a citation of the relevant guideline. (There's a template,, that one can place on the user talk page of an editor making such unnecessary changes.) Deor (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Pierre cb (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However, don't revert if the user is only changing the spelling in articles related to American topics (places in the U.S., people from the U.S., etc.), or in articles where American spelling is otherwise established in the article's history. In those cases, changing from British to American spelling is acceptable. (And vice versa, mutatis mutandis, of course.) —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case in point, the user that Pierre cb noticed was Americanizing the spellings at Radar. The very oldest version of that page uses American spellings, so the anon was actually justified in his actions. (However, it would have been more politic not to call fibre and centimetre "spelling errors" in the edit summary.) —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's quite possible that he's simply unaware that those are the correct British spellings. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And, of course, radar is a British invention, so British spelling would be more appropriate as per WP:ENGVAR. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. The relevant part of WP:ENGVAR says, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." The radar (which according to History of radar actually appears to be a German invention) does not have stronger ties to Britain than to America, so the next section "Retaining the existing variety" applies instead. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the specific case of SI units I believe it is policy to use the UK/euro version, in general other cases (color/colour) I think US is standard..87.102.83.204 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * UNITS deosn't seem to state whether to use meter or metre..87.102.83.204 (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the wikiprojects will often settle on what version to use, depending on context, so if there is a relevent project - get advise there.87.102.83.204 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be a very poor idea to always use UK spelling for SI units, since that would often result in articles with inconsistent spellings. The main thrust of WP:ENGVAR is that any given article should be internally consistent. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One editor changed the SI units from UK to US spelling in an otherwise US-spelled article, claiming that was Wikipedia standard. I reverted it; as Angr says, it looks bad. — kwami (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)