Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 March 5

= March 5 =

spanish translation, ribbed condoms
what do you call ribbed condoms in spanish? how would you say "ribbed for this generations numbness" in spanish? con lomitos para acalambramento de ésta generación maybeTroyster87 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ribbed condoms would be preservativos (or condones) texturados. I quite don't get the meaning of your last sentence, I'm sorry to say. Pallida  Mors  15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "numbness" you mean to refer humorously to youthful detachment and alienation, I would translate the sentence as condones texturados para ésta generación entumecida. L ANTZY T ALK 00:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * so it would be texturado para ésta generación acalambrada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyster87 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

General foreign accent
The article Kissinger that "I watched myself on German television, so that I could finally speak without an accent. And I heard myself speaking with a Swedish accent!" let me thinking - do some people have a foreign accent in all languages that they speak? Does this phenomenon has a name? Under what conditions does it happen?--Mr.K. (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You could say that everyone speaks their own ideolect. To someone from Boston, a US English speaker from Texas has an accent.  Also, if (say) an English speaker hears (say) a French person speaking Russian, the French accent is easy to recognize even though the English speaker doesn't understand French or Russian. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fairly normal for people who speak their non-native language fluently for an extended period of time, although the extent to which people are affected varies, just as the amount of accent varies. It's essentially a matter of the fact that you use different muscles and movements with different languages. They've been 'out of training'. If a native speaker returns to speaking his native language most of the time, then they'll usually revert to accent-free speech fairly quickly. I can speak a few languages with virtually no (foreign) accent. But I can't do so simultaneously. --Pykk (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I can speak english and spanish simultaneously, ha haTroyster87 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese pronunciation
Moved from Humanities Desk

Please: I need the correct pronunciation for Tanaka Shozo, a 19th Century Japanese conservationist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.133.250 (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly how it's written - TA-NA-KA-SHO (like English 'show')-ZO (like the '-zo' in the Greek drink 'Ouzo', or English 'zone'). (The 'stress' is on the 'TA' and the 'SHO').--92.41.122.215 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The name is spelled wrong; it should be Tanaka Shōzō (ja:田中正造). Pronunciation is . Bendono (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mention that because English language conventions usually do not use the bar over the vowel to indicate length, just as we write Tokyo and not Tōkyō, or Osaka and not Ōsaka, and the pronunciations I gave ('show' and 'zo-' in 'zone') are long, anyway.--KageTora (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Straying from the original topic, but FYI:
 * Britannica: Ōsaka (Japan)
 * Britannica: Ōsaka (prefecture, Japan)
 * Encarta: Ōsaka
 * Bendono (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever, but if you want to be pedantic, Google gives over 35,000,000 hits for Osaka and only 34,000,000 hits for Ōsaka. I think that means that they are both used interchangeably. Never harmed my work, and I have been a professional translator of Japanese for over 15 years. Besides, the OP was not asking for the spelling in English.--KageTora (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Language proficiency displayed on one's person
Is there an officially recognized international standard for displaying, on one's person, information about one's proficiency in various languages? I am envisaging something somewhat equivalent to Babel, and also somewhat equivalent to commercial signs such as the following.
 * English is spoken here.
 * On parle français ici.
 * Aquí se habla español.
 * Hier spricht man Deutsch.
 * Si parla italiano qui.
 * Oni parolas esperante ĉi tie.
 * Hominēs hīc Latīnē loquuntur.
 * Aqui se fala português.
 * Здесь говорят по-русски.

Such a system can be used by tourists meeting local residents and/or vice versa, by doctors meeting patients and/or vice versa, and by many other categories of people. The system might involve letter codes, number codes, color codes, and/or other codes for identifying various languages, and a method for indicating levels of proficiency. It might even distinguish proficiencies in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. (The use of flag icons for symbolizing languages, as practiced by some websites, is less than optimal, because a flag is associated with a country, and not every country is uniquely associated with one language.) The information might be displayed on buttons, on ribbons, on patches sewn onto clothing, and/or in some other way. (There might be less conspicuous versions for wristbands and wallet cards.) There might be an "introductory symbol" (a "heading symbol") to indicate the topic of all the other symbols. There might be an organization for testing, certifying, and updating one's language proficiencies specifically for such display. See Category:Language certification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another common system I see on websites is the name of the language in the language itself. For example. If you were organizing a conference, for example, I could imagine a similar code system on everyone's name tag. As for an international standard – here's one example: the EU uses the two-letter country codes. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those codes on that EU website are language codes. See User:Wavelength/Global data/Languages, countries, and codes. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the first system, List of names of the official languages of the European Union in the official languages is useful. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how do you suggest that a person's proficiency in languages would be measured? A self-apointed scale is virtually useless (which is why I don't use W:Babel - a realistic person might say they speak a language to a medium degree and speak it almost fluently, while an optimistic person could likewise apoint themselves a medium degree speaker and yet know little more than basics; and an outside observer can't tell the difference), and the international language tests can have different results regarding proficiency levels from one culture/nation to another as well. Again, what is professional proficiency? I've seen hawkers on streets who could speak no more than three or four phrases of a foreign language, but that was enough to close the deal they were looking to make. Surely, those people were sufficiently proficient as far as their profession required it? Would you have different ribbons for more and less (linguistically) demanding proffesions? TomorrowTime (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Two more things that make an "easy" system unreliable would be that certain local languages don't have a "country code" associated with them. Another is that local dialects can be mutually unintelligible.  I lived in Germany and speak a moderate amount of Low German. (Self assessment, but a heck of a lot more idiomatic than some school taught "experts" do.)  OR has proven that trying to understand a conversation between two Bavarians while they are not trying to communicate with someone speaking their dialect is hopeless, although they'd be considered to speak German.  Communicating with people from countries neighboring Northern Germany worked a lot better despite them speaking a different "official language".  I once attended a conference where a Japanese guy could make out more of what a Scottish attendant was saying than either me or a guy from Kent were able to.  Our movers here in the US and my hubby both hail from Atlanta.  That should make one hopeful that mutual communication would be assured.  I ended up having to translate, because their different cultural background made it hard for the two to understand each other.  At a computer networking conference participants from different countries are likely to have more luck understanding each other than they would, talking about the subject with someone from their own country who's not familiar with the subject.  Language is just a nasty can of worms. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed airline flight attendants often have flags on their name badges. I assumed those flags were to do with the languages they can speak rather then their country of origin.  Astronaut (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-handover, Hong Kong police had either a black or red (bilingually qualified) backing to their individual identity badge numbers. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In Europe I've often seen folks at information kiosks (etc.) wearing lapel pins of national flags, used for this purpose. It is very common. They usually use a British flag to designate an English speaker. I don't remember seeing US flags used that way in Europe, but come to think of it I vaguely remember seeing information booth clerks South Korea's Seoul-Incheon airport with US flag pins to signify that they spoke English. I've also seen such flag decals on the windows of taxicabs, indicating that the driver speaks the corresponding language. As for proficiency, it really only takes basic skill in a language for (say) a taxi driver to take you where you want to go. Wearing a language pin doesn't indicate that the person is fluent enough to carry on erudite literary discourse. 76.195.10.34 (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your comments. Here is my composite reply to some of the points which have been expressed so far.  Additional comments are still welcome.
 * A self-assessment is not perfect, and even a score from an international language test has limitations, but some information is better than none, as a guideline. (An amateur weather forecast is not perfect, and even a professional weather forecast has limitations, but some information is better than none, as a guideline.)
 * There might be a way of indicating whether a score is to be understood as applying to a language in general, or to a specific area of use. If a specific area of use is not indicated, a viewer might assume that the wearer should have a level of proficiency at least sufficient for the usual requirements of the job being performed when the device is being worn.
 * Even if a worker (for example, a hawker on the street or a taxi driver) can perform a job with a basic level of language proficiency most of the time, there are many ways in which a simple situation can become more complicated and require a more advanced level of proficiency. Knowing about the extra leeway can be of some re-assurance to all concerned.
 * There might be a way of indicating a specific dialect (for example, en-gb or en-us), and there might be a way of indicating a specific speech register.
 * If there is an officially recognized international standard, and especially if it is taught in schools and publicized by the media, wearers and viewers can proceed with some reference on which to base their decisions. If that standard does not exist, they might try to improvise as they best know how.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides the points which I mentioned about flag icons in my original post, flags have other disadvantages.
 * A letter code is easier to learn, to remember, and to reproduce than are most national flags. Many flags are highly detailed, and some are only subtly different from certain others.  Without consulting a reference work about flags, how many flags does the average person know?  How many flags in a display of unidentified flags (not in any special order, for example, alphabetical order) can the average person identify?  Also, there might be legal restrictions in regards to the use of images of national flags.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some searching with Google Image Search, and I found the following links, the best that I could find.
 * National Park Service: Uniforms (Badges/Insignia) (bottom of page)
 * Personalized Gifts for Every Occasion! Home Page (bottom of page)
 * The Virtual Cub Leader's Insignia Guide (section "INTERPRETER STRIPS" with additional links)
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The following images are from the article Esperanto symbols.


 * -- Wavelength (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Esperanto symbols is in Category:International flags, which has some flags of language organizations.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The first result of my Google search for "language flag" (which I performed after all of my preceding postings) is Why you should not use a flag as a symbol of language. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At some international gatherings (for example, Earth Summit (1992)), attendees might wish to identify languages as well as countries. Therefore, a national flag might identify a delegation from a particular country, while another kind of item might be used to identify speakers of a particular language. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian dates
I'm working blind on a Russian page and am wondering what the additional text is after the year in Russian dates. For example, see ru:Радваньска, Уршула. Both the years 1990 and 2008 have "год" after them, and are wiki-linked. Does this have something to do with the Orthodox church? If I'm going to be working with dates, when will I need to change "год" to something else? Thank you!  Mae din \talk 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to год, it's the Russian word for year. Algebraist 19:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Should have thought to look!  Thank you for doing the obvious for me, :-)   Mae din \talk 19:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you think it meant 'God'? As in 'the Year of Our Lord'? Easy mistake to make!--92.41.122.215 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Either that, or something like AD or BC. I wondered if they always made it specific.  Anyway, I certainly didn't think it would be quite as simple as "year"!   Mae din \talk 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In English, we cut to the chase and just say "eighteen ninety-two" (5 syllables), no matter whether it's nominative or an oblique case. The Russian formal rules may have relaxed somewhat in recent years, but traditionally they made very heavy weather of dates, and of numbers generally.  They would write "1892", but when reading it aloud they had to say their equivalent of "the one thousand eight hundred and ninety-second year" - which, for those who may be interested, is "тысяча восемьсот девяносто второй год" (týsyacha vosemsót devyanósto vtoróy god - 13 syllables). Hence, most Russian citations of years end with the word "год".  That's just a simple reference to the year.  But when it was in the context of a sentence like " in 1892", the preposition "в" (in) takes the prepositional case, which converts "второй год" to "втором году" (vtoróm godú); so we see examples such as " ..... в 1892-ом году".   And when such a reference is part of a complete date ("Alexandrov was born on 13 November 1892"), the date 13 November 1892 is put into genitive case without a preposition (except that only the last word of a year is genitivised), so it appears on the page as "13-ого ноября 1892-го года" and is spoken as "тринадцатого ноября тысяча восемьсот девяносто второго года" (trinádtsatovo noyabryá týsyacha vosemsót devyanósto vtoróvo góda - 23 syllables compared to our maximum 13 syllables in "on the thirteenth of November eighteen ninety-two").  They usually dispense with the endings in shortened forms such as 13.11.1892 or 13.XI.1892.  Another, real-life, example is the 1812 Overture.  In Russian, it's "Торжественная увертюра 1812 гoда", which they have to pronounce as torzhéstvennaya uvertyúra týsyacha vosemsót dvadtsátovo góda ("Festival Overture of the One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twelfth Year").  It's terribly complicated for outsiders (and no wonder Russians speak so quickly - they have a lot of ground to cover).  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Terribly complicated for someone who hasn't learned a language with more than two cases, I imagine. I studied Latin before Russian, so it all seems quite natural to me. &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cases per se are one thing. But while Russian uses 2 numbers (singular and plural) generally, they use 3 numbers (singular, dual and plural) when counting things.  If the number of things is 1, 21, 31, 41 ... 91 or any higher number that ends in 1, 21, 31 etc (101, 151, 481, 1071, etc) - use nominative singular unless it's the subject of a verb, in which case use accusative; if the number of things is 2, 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34 ... - use genitive singular (whether it's an object or not); if the number of things is anything else - use genitive plural.  And so it goes.  Even for people who've learned Latin and understand the purpose of cases, it often just seems so arbitrary and unnatural to have think in terms of "1 man vs. 3 of a man vs. 7 of men".  But they have no choice but memorise it.  And when you start adding adjectives to the mix ("5 delicious oranges"), it gets worse because the number of the adjective does not necessarily agree with the number of the noun, whereas that's a sine qua non in any other context. --  JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that such complications existed! It's fascinating but bewildering (and I did study Latin for a couple of years, so I shouldn't be so surprised).  Thank you, JackofOz, very much for such an in-depth glimpse into the intricacies of Russian!  I appreciate it, :-)   Mae din \talk 12:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Не за что. (You're welcome).  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Swedish song title
In Christina Charlotta Cederström, it says "Välkommen, o måne, min åldrige vän" translates into "Welcome oh Moon, my agening friend". Should that be "aging" (or is there a new kind of friend out there)? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Google translates it as "Welcome, o moon, my older friend". I think "agening" must be a typo.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it simply means "my (very) old friend". --NorwegianBluetalk 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) The editor, user:Aciram states on the user page that s/he is not a native speaker, so this may be the reason. It is also possible that s/he wanted to maintain some verse foot (a-gen-ing /  ål-dri-ge = dactyl).  According to the Wiktionary stuff on Swedish adjectives "åldrige" is the absolute definitive (positive ?) form and not the comparative (which would be åldrigare).  Oops, I forgot to sign.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To keep the same rhythm, would elderly work? Who then was a gentleman? (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Hang the rhythm - I've gone with "old friend". (I absolutely definitely positively have no clue what Cookatoo said.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Aged" or "Elderly" is much better as than ageing (which isn't a typo but British English), which would translate in Swedish to "åldrande" ch10 · 08:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Agening" isn't a proper word, is it? Anyway, Chandler is right. "åldrige" translates best as "aged". "Old friend" is correct in the sense of "old" as in "aged", but it's a bad translation since the usual interpretation of "old friend" is "long-term friend". At best it's ambiguous, whereas the original has no ambiguity since the root of the word is "ålder" (age). --Pykk (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Prepositions
Prepositions tend to be difficult for us non-natives. Which sentence is correct, "The frequency of in young adults who smoke is rising." or "The frequency of among young adults who smoke is rising."? And should "who" be replaced with "that"? The MS Word grammar checker seems to think so (in some similar cases). Thanks, --NorwegianBluetalk 20:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, all four combinations you suggest are fine, I'm sure if anyone wants to add anything more subtle to this answer, they will. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think either "in" or "among" is fine. The hardcore grammar people might have a reason for one or the other, but either one should be generally understood. I would use "who" instead of "that" because it is people you're talking about. It's just because you use a common noun to describe them, MS Word doesn't recognize the noun refers to people. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Who refers to people. That and which refer to groups or things. As "adults" are both people and a group, this handy rule should remove all confusing clarity.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your example may just be made up, but if it were a sentence you want to use in real life, you might want to think about using a verb other than "rising". There would be absolutely nothing wrong with it if you'd been talking about drinking or some other activity.  It's just that the juxtaposition of smoke with "rising" automatically gives me a mental image of smoke rising, e.g. from a cigarette into the surrounding air, which momentarily distracts me from focussing on what the sentence is actually about. Maybe "increasing" would solve this little problem.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, the example was made up to illustrate the point without revealing too much of the real context. And hopefully, I'd have caught that one when re-reading the manuscript :-) --NorwegianBluetalk 21:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that either preposition is okay. "Among" sounds a little more correct and formal than "in" to my ears.  When you are referring to people, I think you have to use "who".  Some native speakers would use "that", but using "that" for people is nonstandard and frankly suggests a lack of education.  Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As to "in" vs. "among", I expect technical writing by doctors to use "in", while other people might use either one.

As to "that" vs. "who", both are correct, and interchangeable in this context. Marco and Cockatoo don't know what they're talking about, and here are the cites to prove it. All of these were found online using www.onelook.com:

Compact Oxford English Dictionary, sense 5 under that:


 * as pronoun (pl. that) used instead of which, who, when, etc. to introduce a defining clause.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, from the usage note under that'':


 * In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard.

And the American Heritage Dictionary, from the usage note under who'':


 * 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.

Will that do? --Anonymous, 05:38 UTC, March 6, 2009.


 * Well, no, actually. It is acceptable, but not "entirely acceptable".  Some use "that" in relation to people without giving it a second thought; others cringe whenever they hear it, and edit it out of the writing of others, such as in high-quality WP articles. --  JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then those edits need to be reverted, like edits that just swap from one to another national spelling in articles not related to a particular country. --Anonymous, 05:01 UTC, March 8, 2009.


 * Well, I'd better set about creating a (very, very long) list of such edits. The ones that I alone have done over the past 5 years would amount to many hundreds, and nobody to my knowledge has ever objected to or reverted a single one of them.  It seems pretty clear to me that anyone interested in quality encyclopedic writing would automatically edit sentences like "People that smoke are considered to be at risk of a range of serious medical conditions" to "People who smoke ....".  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, everyone. I'll use "The frequency of in young adults who smoke is increasing." --NorwegianBluetalk 09:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)