Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 6

= April 6 =

A subordinated clause treated as a complete sentence
Can a subordinate clause be treated as a complete sentence in some exceptional circumstances and end with a period? For example in a certificate? I know that normally it is not considered so. I see that my University Degree Certificate has this incomplete sentence ending with a period and the next one beginning with initial cap: Whereas it has been certified by duly appointed Examiners that [my name] is qualified to receive the Degree of Bachelor of Arts, he having passed and been placed

in Third Class in Part I,

in Second Class in Part II,

in Third Class in Part III, in [year], [year], [year] respectively.

The Senate of the University confers on him... I would like to get a bookish answer rather than a commonsensical one for this question. Regards Sundardas (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a complete sentence and should not be treated as such. Even if the second part of the sentence begins with a capital for formatting reasons, the first part should not end with a full stop.
 * Contrast the enacting formula of the Westminster Parliament, which uses:
 * WHEREAS [...]:
 * And whereas [...]:
 * [Etc]:
 * Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty [...], as follows:
 * None of those lines, though starting with a capital, is a complete sentence, and the punctuation reflects that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My (commonsensical) guess is that whoever typeset the diploma form did not grasp that whereas (a word not used in ordinary language) introduces a subordinate clause, or else was in thrall to a superstition that a paragraph cannot end with a comma. (I've seen many contracts in which the word whereas is consistently followed by a spurious comma; try telling the lawyers that it's wrong!) —Tamfang (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whereas I'd argue that "whereas" is quite commonly used. But it usually appears somewhere other than the first word in sentence, except where it's used (as in the previous sentence) to mean "on the other hand".  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, a word not used in this sense in ordinary language. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * JackofOz, if you are using the word whereas to mean "on the other hand", you are using it as an adverb. The example given by the original poster uses it as a conjunction.  I have never seen it referred to as an adverb in any dictionary or grammar book.  See wikt:whereas. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I don't see much difference between "whilst on the contrary" and "on the other hand". --  JackofOz (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the sky is blue. is a complete sentence, because On the other hand is an adverb phrase, whereas whilst, on the contrary, the sky is blue is a subordinate clause and a sentence fragment, because it lacks a main clause, whilst being a subordinate conjunction and on the contrary being an adverb phrase.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Mind you, the rules have never stopped anyone from saying But that's not right., or Only if you're talking about gamma rays., or Me too., and others.  Sentences like Whereas, I have a different point of view are very commonly heard in my part of the world, and in that sense whereas can only be a synonym for "on the other hand".  Maybe it needs to be added to the reference books as an Australian adverb.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, one person "finishes" another person's sentence. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird message from EU wiki? (from WP:HD)
Hey.. I just got this email from the eu wiki. I wouldn't have a clue what it says. Anyone able to help me out? I don't think I've ever even visited the eu wiki. Google tells me it is the 'Basque' language.. but I can't find a translator that works with it? Anyone else got a similar message? I've posted it at User:Deon555/EUemail. Cheers &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't read it either, but I can guess. My suspicion is that it is telling you that there is a message for you on your user talk page at the Basque (eu) Wikipedia. Why is there a message for you there? Because single-user login automatically created an account for you there yesterday, and there is a bot that automatically welcomes people when an account is created for them, and the default Preferences setting is to receive an e-mail every time your talk page is changed. This has happened to me on many occasions. —Angr 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... I viewed a page there yesteday. As another user pointed out on WP:HD, this probably occured because I viewed a page. Awesome, thanks so much for your help, Angr. &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  11:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved. &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I understand. I thought it was the EU Wikipedia the OP was talking about. 'Euskara' is Basque for 'Basque', hence the 'eu'. Got it.--KageTora (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

sub-national divisions
The names for the second tier of sub-national divisions tend to be different for different countries. For example, states (USA), provinces (Canada), cantons (Switzerland), prefecture (Japan), départment (France). Is there any basic meaning to these names? (e.g. if territory X, has powers of D, E, F, and legistature set up according to Y and Z, then it must be a Province). Or are the names chosen on random? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For a start, see List of terms for administrative divisions. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember not to read too much into the English names. The political subdivisions of Japan are called 都道府県, not prefectures. Algebraist 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As for 都道府県, see this article. Oda Mari (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a BIG difference between a situation like the U.S., Canada, and Switzerland, which are "federations" and Japan and France, which are "unitary states". In federal states, the first-tier divisions have certain sovereign powers which are not granted to the National government.  In unitary states, the first level divisions are "administrative" divisions ONLY; there is no power for a Department in France to pass laws or organize its own taxation system.  It would be better to think about departments in France to be equivalent to County in the U.S., and that France does not have an equivalent to states.
 * The UK presents a unique situation; it is something between a Unitary State and a Federation; the UK parliament is completely sovereign, but it has at times devolved powers to the assemblies in the Home Nations. However, the Home Nations are NOT equivalent to U.S. states or Canadian provinces, since they ultimately lack true sovereignty.  The Federal governments in the U.S. and Canada are consitutionally forbidden from certain actions which are exclusively the rights of the State/Provincial governments.  In the UK, the Home Nation assemblies (like the Scottish Parliament) only serve at the pleasure of the UK Parliament; in theory they could be eliminated by simple act of Parliament at any time.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not just in theory, Jayron. The Parliament of Northern Ireland was suspended in 1972, and abolished in 1973. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In feudal times, there was at least a nominally consistent system to political subdivisions. In the west, at the top you have an Emperor (Holy Roman Emperor, for example), answerable to no other temporal authority, under whom are kings, dukes, and lesser nobles. A king is sovereign but owes allegiance to the Emperor.
 * A similar system theoretically applied in Asia, which is why the supreme leader of China, for example, is translated as "Emperor".
 * This, of course, was by no means a uniform principle of organisation. Small states like Japan often had all the titles and trappings of "Emperor" equivalent to their neighbours, without the same system of imperial organisation. The system also evolved. The relations between local rulers and the Holy Roman Emperor at its beginning was by no means the same as that at the end. In China, the contrast was even more drastic. In the Han Dynasty, the system was truly feudal: the Empire was divided into semi-autonomous kingdoms which raised armies and enacted laws. However, by the time of the Song Dynasty for example, kings and dukes were often merely titular honours, with the actual administration of the country run under a parallel system of (what are translated as) provinces, counties and prefectures.
 * Internally, a federation is somewhat like an empire: each constituent state has limited sovereignty, and they are answerable in some degree to a central government that also has limited powers. However, in modern times the world has been organised on the principle of equal sovereignty: all sovereign nations are equal. Therefore, a federal or imperial (if they were to exist) would, externally, be the same as a kingdom or a republic. Thus, from a "top-down" view, all first level divisions are the same, differeing only in the arrangement under which power in the country is divided: some give more power to their divisions than others. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ...assemblies in the some of the Home Nations. England does not have an assembly of its own. Bazza (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we have the EU, where all member states are subject ultimately to the laws of European Parliament, yet have the right to opt out of certain laws (like Sweden just did with the law recently passed requiring ISPs to keep information on all email sent). Then there is the Isle Of Man in the UK, which has its own laws, and even has the death sentence, which the Queen ultimately prevents being carried out.--KageTora (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Political sub-divisions tend to follow historic ones, which were cultural, political or both. The word 'state' is strictly political though; it refers to either an independent 'country' or a federal state (a state of states). So either as an independent entity or as a part of a federation, a 'state' always has some political autonomy. Whereas the word 'province' tends to convey the opposite meaning. Switzerland, for instance, is a federation, so there's nothing wrong with referring to cantons as 'states'. Like states of the USA or Germany, they have the right to pass their own laws within certain areas. As noted above, there are exceptions of course; many countries have autonomous or semi-autonomous regions, but they don't qualify as 'federations'. OTOH, the situation in Russia is pretty complex, with the degree of autonomy being almost a case-by-case matter as far as the Siberian districts are concerned. --Pykk (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then there's China, with first-level sub-national administration defined as Provinces (22), autonomous regions (5), municipalities (4), special administrative regions (2) and several claimed-but-never-controlled areas in the South China Sea and East China Sea such as the Senkaku (Diaoyutai) Islands, the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands and Taiwan. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The South China Sea islands are almost all administratively part of Hainan province under the PRC (or Taiwan province according to the ROC). Taiwan, both sides agree, is a Province. The Diaoyutai Islands are part of Taiwan province.
 * The first-level divisions of China are provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities and special administrative regions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Developing countries in general are more likely to have "weird" names for their subdivisions: for a random example, while in many countries a district is typically a small area, Botswana has districts as its primary subdivision. You can see more examples at Articles on first-level administrative divisions of African countries.  Nyttend backup (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That only applies to former European colonies that have native English names. In developing countries which have no such heritage, the names are lot more "normal", but only because we translate them into familiar terms.
 * In a similar vein, some names used in developed countries, like the German land or the French départment, are a little different to what is familiar to Anglophones if translated directly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any developing countries that have NOT been colonies?--KageTora (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ethiopia (fairly clear case), Liberia (almost so), Thailand (still developing, right?), and I would guess more but can't think of any right now. Jørgen (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From the Italian perspective, Ethiopia was briefly annexed as part of the colony of Italian East Africa. From the Ethiopian perspective, however, they were invaded but never subjugated.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Iran and Afghanistan? —Angr 06:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)