Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 April 17

= April 17 =

Japanese sentences
I tried translated some sentences into Japanese using Google translate, and I noticed that when I added a period at the end of each of my sentences, not only was a small circle added to the end of the Japanese sentence, but the last three characters completely changed. Why are different words used to mean the same thing when they are at the end of a sentence? Does every word have a middle of the sentence version and an end of the sentence version? --99.254.8.208 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred doesn't like bananas. フレッドはバナナが好きじゃない. or フレッドはバナナが好きではありません. Oda Mari (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Fred likes bananas
 * 2) *フレッドはバナナが好き
 * 3) Fred likes bananas.
 * 4) *フレッドはバナナが好きです.
 * Is this what you saw? --Kjoonlee 05:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (I believe what Kjoonlee is hinting at is that, if this is what you are talking about, it can be explained by the fact that です is a kind of sentence-final particle.) r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Japanese word order is classified as Subject Object Verb.


 * 1. The "small circle" is the Japanese equivalent of a period. 2. Google Translate is rubbish, especially when translating between languages as different as Japanese and English. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't expect good results from Google Translate, but I'm still curious about what it gave me and how the language is set up. The part that confused me is when it didn't just add characters to end a sentence, but changed existing ones:  Here's an example of one of the sentences that does this:
 * I am Canadian
 * 私はカナダの午前
 * I am Canadian.
 * 私はカナダ人です.
 * The part that the two have in common (私はカナダ) translates as "I am Canadian". So if 人です is a sentence-ending particle and not actually a word, what is の午前?  --99.254.8.208 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 人 means "person" and です means "to be", so only 私はカナダ人です means "I am Canadian". 午前 means "morning" or "a.m." and の basically means "'s" (it makes a genitive out of a preceding noun), so 私はカナダの午前 has no verb at all but just means "I - Canada's - a.m." +Angr 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It would appear that Google translate has some heuristic that if it hits a full stop, it takes that as completing a sentence, and translates it as a sentence, with a main verb です. If it doesn't, it doesn't know whether this is a sentence or just part of one, so it doesn't copmlete the sentence in Japanese. (the '午前' for 'am' is a different matter, but it is probably still relevant whether or not it believes it is parsing a full sentence). --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is a fragment and it seems Google has assumed that "Canadian" in this case is an adejective which is going to describe whatever follows; "the a.m" according to Angr, Google translate, and my dictionary (which I didn't believe becase it didn't make sense!). On the other hand, the second translation (私はカナダ人です. ) does form a complete sentence, literally "I, Canadian person am".  Astronaut (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! --99.254.8.208 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Astronaut is correct. I tried "I am Canadian citizen". Even though it lacks "a" and period, Google translated it correctly. Then I tried translating pages for native Japanese speakers. They all translate the sentence without period correctly., , and. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The condition of talking with Sinebots
(Moved from Misc Desk)

I've noticed a few new users replying to Sinebot when it posts on their talk page advising them to use the squiggles at the end of their post. Is their a term for the phenomenon of attempting to communicate with an inanimate/static communication? 70.177.189.205 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, no? It would be like talking to your computer screen, or a billboard. If there isn't a term, you could make it up.  2D Backfire Master  ballroom blitz 13:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be a good Q for the Language Desk. Anthropomorphization is "ascribing human characteristics to something non-human", which would include thinking that the bot can listen to you and understand. StuRat (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To Backfire: I'm narrowing it down to the condition of thinking that you are carrying on a 2 way conversation where the 2nd subject is clearly(to the more informed), incapable of conversing. Other examples would be trying to talk back to the outgoing recording of an answering machine (where the owner has scripted a clever message that appears to be live), or replying to a "No Reply" email bulletin, thinking it was addressed to you personally (as in emails from your elected gov't representative). To StuRat: yes, heading in the right direction.  I'm looking for the human condition, something of a more exact and less insulting synonym for "technologically lost", or "confused"70.177.189.205 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A bit more appropriate word would be "futility". Otherwise, I really don't know. Like Stu said, take it up to the Language desk. Calling back telemarketers. Or, in reverse, a tech support line calling you.  2D Backfire Master  ballroom blitz 14:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of someone talking to sine-bot? I would imagine that in most cases it's a newbie who doesn't realize it's not a real person writing on their page.  In that case, it's just a case of mistaken identity (not in the criminal sense, though). Buddy431 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Happens all of the time here on Sinebots talk page. It is also on many new users pages as well, replying to the bot.  I'm sure a few get ticked when they are ignored. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * AnomieBOT gets talk like this too. I can think of at least one relatively experienced editor who regularly sends little "thank you" notes to bots.  Though the user's first 1 000 edits range in quality from the forgettable to the just plain embarrassing, this user seems now to have at least some understanding of how Wikipedia works.  I'm guessing his motivation is as Dbfirs said, that the "attaboy" would get back to the human running the bot.  --Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Turing test is a related but distinct notion. Gabbe (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, what would the condition be called to those thinking that they are in a discussion, that are in fact "lost"? I was hoping that some letters had been strung together to concisely identify this behavior, similar to my dogs mental state when he is chasing his tail. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can make one up: "ELIZA-fooled". StuRat (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Like talking to a wall", of course... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk)


 * I've heard "technology challenged" used to describe people who aren't able to use it. A more specific form, like "bot challenged", might be in order here. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cf. ELIZA —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that all bots had a real human "parent" who wrote them and who monitors performance. If this is so, then replying to the bot might not be a total waste of time, since it could lead to improvements in the bot if the writer reads the replies (well, just possibly?).  The phenomenon of talking to inanimate objects is surprisingly common.  Is there anyone here who has never done this (even if it is only to swear at something)?  We do have an article on Anthropomorphism. (sorry, just realised that StuRat indirectly linked to this above)    D b f i r s   07:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Malling
East Malling, West Malling, Tonbridge and Malling.

What is the etymology of "Malling"? Can we include the information into the articles?174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this site; "'People of *Mealla'. *Mealla is a monothematic masculine personal name. Old English '-ingas'." Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find *mealla in Bosworth-Toller but meala is an alternative spelling of melu, "flour", but I doubt this is the origin. -- the Great Gavini  17:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish (Gaeilge): Saor & Daor
In Irish (and apparently Scottish Gaelic as well), saor applies to general concepts of freedom, while daor means both un-free as well as expensive (in American English). #1: Is it mere coincidence that these antonyms are so similar to each other? #2: Is the expensive meaning of "daor" a mere phonetic borrowing from British English (dear)? --达伟 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a coincidence. Irish has several pairs of words where the "positive" one begins with s- and the "negative" one with d-. Other examples are sorcha "bright" / dorcha "dark" and sona "happy, fortunate" / dona "unfortunate, bad". In these examples (as with saor/daor), the words are no longer felt to have prefixes, but the prefixes so- and do- are still productive in other words, like so-bhlasta "tasty" / do-bhlasta "bad tasting" and soghluaiste "movable" / doghluaiste "immovable". These prefixes go back to Proto-Indo-European *h1su- and *dus- and are thus related to the Greek prefixes eu- and dys-, as in euphemism / dysphemism. I'm pretty sure that the similarity in sound between daor and dear is just a coincidence. It happens sometimes that two languages have false cognates, i.e. words for the same thing are pronounced the same or nearly the same, purely by coincidence: the Persian word for "bad" is bad, and the Mbabaram word for "dog" is dog. +Angr 06:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)