Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 April 26

= April 26 =

Double possessives and relative clauses
OK, here's a dilemma I encountered today. I started out writing:


 * The second movement was a favourite of Lady Elgar's.

Then I wanted to append:


 * , who described it as "captured sunshine".

But then I reasoned that "who" refers to Lady Elgar, not to Lady Elgar's.

What’s the solution? Is it ok to write:


 * The piece was a favourite of Lady Elgar, who described it as "captured sunshine",

even though without the dependent clause it would have to end with a double possessive?

It's easy enough to rearrange the sentence to avoid the problem, but I want to confront the technical issue. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   02:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your last example is the way I write it when this issue comes up for me, although there are some subtle differences. There is no hard-and-fast rule in English that we have to use 'double possessives', but there are discourse-related issues... my intuition is that the double possessive is used when the "possessor" (Lady Elgar in this case) is already given (i.e., has already been mentioned in the discourse), whereas the non-double one is used when you're introducing a new person as the "possessor" (i.e., "not only was this movement super-famous, but it was even a favorite of the king of England!"). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another solution would be The second movement was a favorite of Lady Elgar's; she described it as "captured sunshine". Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Rjanag. Thank you.  I'm not sure your example works well, though.  Assuming we were talking about England, I'd normally just refer to "the king".  Then it'd come out as "not only was this movement super-famous, but it was even a favorite of the king".  That's a problem because the expression "favo(u)rite of the king" is already in my brain as referring to a human being.  To make this sentence work, it would have to be "... it was even a favorite of the king's".
 * But if it was necessary to state which realm the king belonged to, I'm not sure we could ever write "... it was even a favorite of the king of England's", much less "... it was even a favorite of the king of the United Kingdom's", much, much less "... it was even a favorite of the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's".
 * This discussion about when the double possessive is appropriate or not, while useful in itself, does not help me to resolve what happens when something tries to follow a double possessive, as in my original question. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Marco Polo. Thank you. That's pretty much what I'd write, I guess.  What I'm wanting to know is whether it's always necessary to come up with such an alternative solution, or whether it's ever acceptable to write " ... a favourite of Lady Elgar's, who described it as ...".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, that construction sounds wrong. I just don't think that a possessive works as an antecedent for a relative pronoun.  Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Marco polo. That confirms what I thought at the start.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with a possessive as antecendent. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A. That book on the table is Mary's, who's coming to pick it up today.
 * B. That book on the table belongs to Mary, who's coming to pick it up today.
 * Is there a preference? I might say either of them in colloquial speech, but I think I'd prefer B in formal contexts.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What's kimbling?
I found this on a screen-printer's website: "We can offer a full Quality Controlled garment steaming and pressing service. We can then hang, label or re-label and kimble for retail point of sale." The only definition I can find is from Urban Dictionary, which says to kimble is to defeat your opponent in a sporting event despite having only one arm. 81.131.26.26 (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We used to have an article on Kimble tag. A google image search gives you an idea of the tag and corresponding tag gun your website must be referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, those things! So that's what they're called. Thanks. 81.131.26.26 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hyphens in organizations and place names
For joining two names in an organization or place, should you use a hyphen or an ndash? In the titles of your articles, like Kitchener-Waterloo and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, you use hyphens, but I've heard that this is wrong. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that our Manual of Style calls for n-dashes. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The guidelines WP:NDASH and WP:HYPHEN have extensive discussion of this sort of thing. My feeling is that the hyphens in the examples you cited are indicating conjunction rather than disjunction, and are therefore appropriate. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But WP:DASH says to use ndash to mean "and". I think in both of my examples the hyphen implies the word "and", so it looks like your style guide recommends renaming the pages.  --198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever else you decide, it's ridiculous that Kitchener—Waterloo and Kitchener-Waterloo are currently distinct articles. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The one with the m-dash should be the electoral district, the one with the n-dash should be the twin city, and there shouldn't be one with a hyphen (unless it redirects to the n-dash one). --198.103.172.9 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Elections Canada always uses long dashes between the names of different communities in a riding name so they are not confused with hyphens, which are common in French-language place names, thus Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people consider the en dash in such constructs to be just a typographical variant of the hyphen, and consider Kitchener-Waterloo with a hyphen the normal spelling. As noted above, WP policy is that the characters are distinct and the article title should be "Kitchener–Waterloo" with an en dash, with "Kitchener-Waterloo" as a redirect. In fact "Kitchener–Waterloo" was redirecting to "Kitchener&mdash;Waterloo" with an em dash, which, as noted above, is correctly a separate article because it has a different meaning.

I've added some clarification distinguishing between the two articles in the form of hatnotes, and I've corrected the redirect of "Kitchener–Waterloo" with an en dash, to go to "Kitchener-Waterloo" with a hyphen. But as an unregistered user, I can't rename an article. If someone else would please rename "Kitchener-Waterloo" with a hyphen to become "Kitchener–Waterloo" with an en dash, which will automatically reverse the redirect, citing the MOS as the reason, then things will then be as they should be. --Anonymous, 20:30 UTC, April 27, 2010.


 * What about Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation? Should Asia-Pacific be a hyphenated term, or does the hyphen stand for the word "and"?  --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Fast As I Can" or "Fast as I Can"
This is the title of a song on an upcoming album. I can't wrap my head around whether the word "as" is being used as an adverb, a conjunction, or a preposition. If it's an adverb, then it's capitalized. Otherwise, not. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Albums. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's an adverb modifying "fast". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this case, I think it's a subordinating conjunction, but according to the style Wavelength has linked, it should be capitalized anyway, since it is not on the list of conjunctions that are lower-cased. Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it's a tricky little devil, but at least the answer is simple: capitalized it is! Thank you guys, very much. (is resolved ever used on ref desk questions?) –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it being used. Rimush (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok... but before I close the discussion, I just received "intel" from a non-Wikipedia source that the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition states that "as" should never be capitalized in a title, no matter what the use (excluding first/last word). Is this just another example of the English language changing to be more simple? I disagree completely, but I can't verify this at the moment (not near a library). –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  20:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Manual, 14th edition, clearly states (rule 7.127): "In regular title capitalization, also known as headline style, the first and last words and all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinating conjunctions (if, because, as, that, etc.) are capitalized. . . ."  The rule seems to have changed for the 15th edition (rule 8.167), which recommends lower-casing as no matter how it's used.  These rules are obviously arbitrary and are merely the recommendation of the University of Chicago Press.  It is perfectly acceptable for another publication (such as Wikipedia) to adopt a different style rule.  Most publishing companies have style sheets, which depart from Chicago's rules in some ways and which may vary from publication to publication.  Wikipedia existing rule on capitalization for the names of albums (which is more specific than Chicago's general rule for all titles of works) is clear.  According to this rule, as should be capitalized.  If you are unhappy with this rule, you can challenge and try to change it.  Otherwise, the thing to do is to apply the rule.  Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all, if anything, I'm unhappy with the Chicago Manual's 15th edition lazy-man's change. Thank you so very much for your referenced input, Marco polo. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wish English would step into line with the other European languages and abandon the ridiculous custom of "title case", and just use sentence case in titles. +Angr 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the differences that make languages interesting; it's what makes them what they are. Maybe we should start using the same words as other languages, that'd make things nice and convenient, wouldn't it.  One problem, though: which language do we copy?  I know, we'll copy all of them, a bit from here, a bit from there, all nice and non-discriminatory.  What's that you say?  Already done that?  Get away with you!  :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

avec versus en utilisant
Hello all. In the sentence "Je me brosse les dents le «Colgate». would it be more idiomatic to replace with avec or en utilisant. Tahnks in advance! --Peter aka Petey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.149.101 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Avec. and I wouldn't even say le Colgate, I would just say "avec Colgate". –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to wikt:avec, the word "avec" can be used to denote the instrument used. However, "en utilisant" is more precise, by indicating that "Colgate" is not your companion who is brushing his or her teeth at the same time with you.  "Je me brosse les dents avec du (dentifrice) Colgate."  "Je me brosse les dents en utilisant du (dentifrice) Colgate." -- Wavelength (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)