Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 September 12

= September 12 =

Some surnames in reverse order
Why is it that we English-speakers tend to refer to some Japanese individuals as givenname-surname, rather than using the surname-givenname that they use for themselves? I could understand it if we used this fashion for all languages/cultures that are surname-givenname, since consistency is reasonable; and I'm aware that we tend to speak of Hungarians in the same way, even officially as can be seen here. However, we use surname-givenname for Chinese names; why are the Japanese and Hungarians linguistically treated different from the Chinese? Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Plenty of people get Chinese names wrong too. It is just ignorance, people don't know the correct form. It doesn't help that some people who would usually use surname-givenname reverse it (or even use a completely different name) when speaking English, and some don't, and it is very difficult to know which are which. I think you just have to ask, really... (Or google it - that has worked for me on at least one occasion.) --Tango (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Japanese name. And see also Japanese addressing system. Oda Mari (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lin Yu Tang wrote about some people calling him "Mr. Tang", which he found faintly absurd... AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't tend to write Hungarian names given-name-first in English. You always do so, unless someone made a mistake. The only exception are some names that have been included in proper nouns. E.g. It's usually called "Eötvös Loránd University" in English, but the man is always "Loránd Eötvös". --Pykk (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that's interesting. I wonder why it's surname-given name order in that case, whereas the "Liszt Ferenc Zeneművészeti Egyetem" is known in English as the Franz Liszt Academy of Music, not the Liszt Franz Academy of Music.  Maybe it's because both "Loránd" and "Eötvös" are unfamiliar names to most English-speakers and relatively few people would know which is the surname and which the given name.  On the other hand, Franz Liszt is relatively much better known, and it would sound completely unnatural to refer to him, in any context, as "Liszt Franz".  Just a guess.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Franz Liszt is not a Hungarian name, so Hungarian rules don't apply. Algebraist 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but if there were a Béla Bartók Academy/University, we'd call it that, and not the "Bartók Béla Academy". --  JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly not wrong to put the name in "correct" order and say "L. E. University". It's not the rule, just an exception to the opposite rule. Hungarians and Hungarian-speakers are generally very consistent with changing the name-order with language. I find it stranger that the Asian languages are so terribly inconsistent. Is it because of general ignorance about Asian names? Or is it because the transliterated name gets confused with the 'translated' name? In any case it's rather bizarre that, say, "Imre Nagy" is always family-name-last in English but "Mao Zedong" is the opposite. Speaking as someone with a Hungarian name myself, I strongly advocate the former. Me and my (rather polyglot) family has always put family-name first in Hungarian and last in other European languages. (most Hungarians, out of whom most speak a second language, would say the same) That's how we see it: Name order is not part of the name, but part of the language you're speaking. It's not about 'what we call ourselves', because what we call ourselves has always depended on what language we were using! --Pykk (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's funny how Chinese names are usually rendered in English as surname first, but Japanese names the other way around. Then there are Vietnamese names, where the "surname" is not defined in the way we're used to thinking about it, and a given Vietnamese person can be catalogued under any one or all three of their names.  Thai names are different again.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kinship term for relation between one's sets of grandparents
Assume that Alice and Bob's child marries the child of John and Mary(they don't have to have grandchildren; my title is just the most concise explanation I could think of for the concept that doesn't suggest incest). Is there a kinship term in any language which could play the role of X in the following sentences? "[Alice|Bob] is [John|Mary]'s X"; "Alice and Bob are X's to John and Mary". 69.224.114.253 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand this:

AliceBob           MaryJohn |                         |        |                          |      (child)---(child)
 * and you're asking how Alice/Bob and Mary/John are related. I don't think that relationship has a name, and WolframAlpha seems to agree with me. As for what to call them: supposing I am directly related to Mary and John Smith (making up surnames here), then I would just call Alice and Bob Brown "Mr and Mrs Brown". Xenon54 / talk / 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a nifty tool, Xenon. But I believe the OP was asking if there is a term for this relationship in any language.  Being largely cultural, kinship terms are marked in different ways for different cultures so that, for example, some cultures have completely different terms for a mother's brother and father's brother (both concepts that we call "uncle").  According to Chinese kinship (and an online chinese annotation tool that I can't link to), the term for your child's parent-in-law is 亲家 (qìng jia in Pinyin).
 * In English, we apparantly have co-father-in-law, co-mother-in-law, co-parents-in-law, co-grandparents, etc. But I've never used these terms and they apparantly appear more often in translations from languages where such terms exist more readily.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  03:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In finding citations for those articles, it does seem that most of the English terms are used primarily in travel literature, ethnology, or in translation from French, Spanish, Malay, etc. However, I did come across several newspaper columns that used 'co-grandmother'. (Though of course that word only works once the married couple has children.) kwami (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are specific kinship terms for the relationship of one's child's spouse's parents in a number of languages (not usually depending on whether there are mutual grandchildren). In Hebrew, the form is mekhutan מחותן masculine, mekhutenet מחותנת feminine (though that term can sometimes cover further relatives besides the child's spouse's parents). AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is mechuteynesteh not Hebrew, then? kwami (talk)
 * Can't say whether it might be occasionally used in modern Hebrew or not, but it has a Yiddish suffix... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's both in Yiddish and in Yinglish (As you can see here). However, it's never used in Hebrew. HOOTmag (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh man, I completely forgot about Spanish consuegro (or consuegra). That's definitely more common than the English term.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  07:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's every-day vocabulary in Spanish, maybe about as common as 'god father' is in English. kwami (talk)

In Korean, the term is 사돈 "sadon." When you use the term to call out to them, you use "sadon." When you use the term to describe them to other people, you say "sadon yangban." When you want to say "male sadon" then you say "bakkat (outer) sadon," and when you want to say "female sadon" then you say "an (inner) sadon." --Kjoonlee 08:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can both a man and a woman speak of their bakkat sadon or an sadon, or do women speak of their an sadon and men their bakkat sadon? kwami (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, both men and women can call their "male sadon" their bakkat sadon, and their "female sadon" their an sadon. I've also heard "sadon daek" being used to refer to the "an sadon" in the third person. --Kjoonlee 09:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just back to English: while there may not be a one-word term for this relationship, it can definitely be described in unambiguous terms - "our/my son/daughter's parents-in-law" or "our/my son/daughter-in-law's parents". This sort of question comes up often enough (both here and out there) for me to wonder why nobody's ever come up with a word. The "co-" words mentioned above seem to have their focus on the couple who marry, or their children. But for the relationship solely between the respective sets of parents of the couple, there does seem to be a gap. In real life, there are many ways of getting around it: "Have you ever met the Jacksons of Cranberry Lane?" - "Met them? Our daughter married their son!"  But wouldn't it be nice to be able to reply:  "Met them?  We're ______s". ("We're going out to dinner tonight with our co-parents-in-law" doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid). -- JackofOz (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if English borrowed the Spanish term. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But "parents-in-law" only works for legal marriages. Plenty of people have kids without a wedding. In many cases, the grandparents need to do more to support the resulting child, so a term is needed. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) I don't think "in-laws" necessarily implies a legal or sanctified marriage. (2) But "parents-in-law" is misleading or else confusing, since the "parents-in-law" don't have a quasi-parental relationship to each other in the way that sisters-in-law have a sisterly relationship, a son-in-law has a filial relationship to a mother-in-law, or a father-in-law has a parental relationship to a daughter-in-law. Indeed, when a bride moves into the house that a groom shares with his parents, or a groom moves into a house that a bride shares with hers, the quasi-parental/filial relationship becomes quite apparent. But if the bride's or groom's parents should move into the spouse's family home, they wouldn't become like either parents or children of the paterfamilias or materfamilias. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.

Co-parent-in-law: its logic is clear: just as one's co-parent - is: one's child's parent (simply replace "co" by "child's"), so one's co-parent-in-law - must be: one's child's parent-in-law (again: simply replace "co" by "child's"). HOOTmag (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't quite work. Parents are said to have a "co-parenting role" in respect of their children.  But they are co-parents only in relation to their children, not in relation to each other.  Similarly, a mother and father are not each other's parent, but each other's (former) spouse/partner.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, a child's parents are co-parents in relation to each other, not in relation to their child. For example: If you're my child's parent, then you're my co-parent. Similarly, If you're my child's parent-in-law, then you're my co-parent-in-law. That's why the rule here is quite consistent: simply replace "child's" by "co". HOOTmag (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You say: "If you're my child's parent, then you're my co-parent". I say: "If you're my child's parent, then you're a co-parent of my child".  We'll probably never agree on this, so there's not much point in prolonging it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not just me, who would say that: 10,000 persons agree with me. Who agrees with you? HOOTmag (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, these 186 persons and these 1,1810 persons, for starters. There'd be many more, once you search for "boy's co-parent", "girl's co-parent", etc.  Apparently, it's used in both ways, so we're both right.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, whoever uses "one's co-parents" for one's parents (who aren't necessarily spouses), has to explain the rationale of "one's co-parent-in-law". However, those 10,000 persons who use "one's co-parent" for one's child's parent (who isn't necessarily a spouse) , have a very simply rationale for "one's co-parent-in-law": both "one's co-parent" and "one's co-parent-in-law", are simply: one's child's parent and one's child's parent-in-law, so their rationale is quite consistent: simply replace "co" by "child's". HOOTmag (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they do not have to explain anything. As was made clear up above, the term "co-parent-in-law" has not exactly gained wide acceptance, and imo it never will.  Even "co-parent" is not particularly widely used, except in the verbal form "co-parenting".  Now just let it be and let's move on.  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? As far as I am concerned, I am talking about those people who do use both terms: "co-parent", as well as "co-parent-in-law", so your argument about the narrow usage of these terms among English speakers, is irrelevant to the kind of people mentioned above.
 * My argument is quite simple: Once we decide to refer to those people who use both terms, we have a definitely consistent rationale for using the "co" - provided that we interpret the "co" as equivalent to "child's": This way, "my co-parent" is simply "my child's parent" (who isn't a spouse), just as "my co-parent-in-law" is simply "my child's parent-in-law". However, other people, who - on one hand - use both terms, but - on the other hand - interpret "my co-parent" as "my parent" (who isn't a spouse) - just as you interpret it, can't find a reasonable consistent rationale for their usage of the term "co-parent-in-law".
 * Want to "move on"? I don't reject your suggestion.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I plan to study and stay in Japan for several years.
I am fluent in English and Chinese, but know only very basic Japanese. How long would I need to learn Japanese? In the meantime, can I survive in Japan while speaking only English and Chinese? --59.189.59.145 (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 'How long would I need to learn Japanese?' - this depends entirely on you, the time, and the effort you put into learning the language, whether you go on a course or try to teach yourself/learn from friends....etc. It also depends on what you mean by 'learn Japanese'. To what level? Survival level? General conversation level? Business level? For general conversation level, going on a course of study and living in the country at the same time should get you there in about a year or less. However, if you are fluent in Chinese and can read Chinese, you have a major advantage over other learners in that you will be able to recognize written words more readily and it will be easier for you to commit them to memory. As for surviving in Japan in the meantime, Chinese would only help for reading signs and other things (but remember, Japanese uses a mix of 简体字 and 繁体字 and also has its own 漢字 for certain things) and spoken Chinese would be next to useless. Living in Japan and only speaking English, whilst being quite inconvenient, is not impossible, as while I was there for ten years I had English speaking colleagues who never ever bothered to learn the language and they had been there longer than me. Good luck in your studies! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fluency in written Chinese will help you in Japan to about the same extent that fluency in written English will help you in France. It might be worth your while to learn "loanword English" (English as it sounds when transcribed in katakana—here's an example) since that will be better understood by your typical Japanese person on the street, but I don't know if that would be any easier than learning a similarly useful amount of Japanese. -- BenRG (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, plus you have to beware of false friends. There are quite a lot in Japanese - both with loanwords from European languages like English and in usages of Kanji in Japanese. One example that springs to mind is the word 手紙 which, as you will know, means 'toilet paper' in Chinese, but 'letter' (as in one you write and send through the post) in Japanese. If you didn't know that, you'd be fairly confused in the post office! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can survive in Japan -- or in much of it -- by speaking English. Chinese will rarely be of help to you, except in maps and the like. When you speak even the simplest English, many people will not understand you at all (or will pretend not to). You may later notice that the overwhelming majority of Japanese people have spent dozens of hours on a school subject called "Eigo" (which translates as "English"), and may wonder how inefficient this enterprise could possibly have been. Younger people are a better bet than older. That said, there are a great number of Japanese people who are commendably proficient in English. (And not just English. The other day I was sitting in a Tokyo train next to a woman who was teaching herself Dutch.) -- Hoary (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

松 = ?
Hello! I already could read this letter with a horizontal line on the right top – like this: ⼋? Does exist such a font, too? Doc Taxon (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand the question. Do you want this character with a line above and a line below it? If so, it would not be a font you want, it would be a button on MS Word (or whatever software you are using to write). Or, are you looking for a character that looks like this, but with a line over it (and therefore a different character)? Do you have a link to a page with that character? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm...I also had trouble understanding the question, but I think Doc Taxon is looking for 松 . It's the same character as 松, just in a slightly different typeface (and I think it's used more in non-Chinese writing, such as Hanja)...I don't know what exact font you need to get it, though. To make it show up in Wikipedia (and I assume in any html) you just have to enclose it in a style tag: "" r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, 松 is I was looking for. And now I know, that the only difference is the typeface. Thanks, Doc Taxon (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Korean spicy sauce - tenjang
What is 'tenjang' in Chinese? I guess the 'jang' bit is probably the Chinese word 酱 but I can't guess what the first bit would be. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about the second part, but the first part is actually Korean, not Chinese. What does the Korean bit mean? I have no idea, but 되다 is a descriptive verb meaning "it's got hardly any water." --Kjoonlee 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Kjoonlee, I knew you'd be along soon. How would I say write it in Chinese, then? I've been trying to explain it to a friend of mine I met in Shanghai a few days ago. When I said the word 'tenjang' she said she understood what it was, but couldn't tell me the hanzi/hanja for it. Also, forgive me if I am missing the obvious here, but what does 'toda' have to do with this? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:テンジャン uses the Korean way of writing doenjang in Hanja: you write a mix of Hangul and Hanja: 된醬. I think a Chinese person would write it using all Hanzi (like how Coca-Cola is written 可口可乐) but I've no idea exactly how.
 * "Doeda" is the infinitive form of the verb, and when you use it in front of a noun in becomes "doen." So when you say "doen bap" it means "cooked rice which is drier than usual." When you say "doen jang" (two words) then it means "paste which is thicker than usual." Doenjang (one word) is the Korean sauce. --Kjoonlee 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to a Google search it's called "大酱" (big sauce?) in Chinese. Here is a recipe for tenjang soup in Chinese. --antilivedT 06:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you both. And Kjoonlee, sorry, my Korean transliteration wasn't very good. I didn't notice the 'i' in the first syllable (something I keep missing!) turning the vowel 'o' into the diphthong usually transliterated by 'oe' and pronounced 'e'. This is why I couldn't get the connection. Cheers! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)