Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 July 16

= July 16 =

Ditched, crashlanded, forced to land
I'm wondering if these terms have precise meanings.

The aircraft "ditched" on the icecap.

The aircraft ran out of fuel and was "forced to land" on the icecap.

The aircraft "crashlanded" on the icecap.

My sense is that "crashlanded" means came to the ground not under the control of the pilot, that "was forced to land" means the pilot controlled the landing. "Ditched" I associate with water.

Am I correct that the three terms mean different things?

Other question: should one say "the aircraft ditched" or "the aircraft was ditched"?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditched doesn't necessarily imply water, it just means "landed" whatever the circumstances, runway or not. OED does not give any closer sense than to smear. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no. As Wiktionary notes, to 'ditch' an aircraft is to "deliberately crash-land [it] on the sea". (My copy of Chambers 20th C Dictionary concurs), on this basis, you seem to be correct that "ditched on the icecap" is simply wrong. Regarding 'crashlanded', I think it has a meaning intermediate between 'crash' and 'land' - a landing under at least partial control, but resulting in damage to the aircraft. Again, Wiktionary concurs: . Sadly, the distinction isn't always understood by the media, who recently chose to report what was clearly a forced landing as a 'crash' - possibly because the aircraft subsequently burnt out.  Note to that those on board made the obligatory 'miraculous escape'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But a crashlander, of course, is someone from We Made It. --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) "To ditch" is a synonym for "to abandon" . My understanding is that "ditched" is usually implies a situation where takeoff would be impossible, usually to the point where any reuse of the aircraft would be impossible. That's probably why you associate it with water, as that's one situation where aircraft abandonment is assured, and for most land landings a pilot would attempt to preserve the airplane. So if a pilot was "forced to land" on an icecap, I would expect he'd take off again once the weather cleared or repairs were completed. If he "ditched" his aircraft on an icecap, I would assume that there likely a mechanical fault that rendered the plane unflyable, but still allowed him to land safely (and then hike out/signal a rescue ship). If the airplane "crashed" on the icecap, the pilot didn't have control. On the final point, my understanding is that as it's the pilot who does the abandoning, it's "the aircraft was ditched". -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need an etymologist here, or at least someone with more information. I suspect that 'ditch' in the general sense of 'get rid of' is a different (and perhaps later?) usage of the word than the aircraft-specific one. Possibly the answer can be found in a search for early aircraft-related usage - though that would be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a pilot, I do associate "ditching" with water, but not always. For example, I wouldn't think twice about it if you said someone ditched an airplane in a field, though I maybe would not say that myself.  I associate ditching an airplane with, as 140 hinted at above, doing what's necessary to ensure that the passengers get out of the plane safely on the ground/water, without regard for damage to the airplane, and with the acceptance that the plane probably won't fly again, at least not without major repairs.  A "crash landing", which isn't a term that we really use much as pilots, would be a landing where the airplane was at least partially under control and there was significant damage.  An example of that could be if I somehow came in nose low, and knocked out the nose-wheel and propeller (and that is a heck of a lot harder to do than it sounds).  A forced landing is, to me, a landing that is forced by the circumstances, and I associate the term with off-airport landings.  The degree of damage in a forced landing isn't relevant to me; I would consider an engine failure and a flawless landing with no damage to be a forced landing, just as I would an engine failure resulting in a [controlled] landing with catastrophic damage, as was the sad case with the Liberty Belle the other week, when thankfully nobody was hurt.  Does that help?  Those aren't official definitions, but those at least are how I think of them.  As for usage, "the pilot ditched the aircraft", or "they ditched in a lake".  I don't think I would use "The aircraft ditched", though it certainly would be clear what is meant. Falconus p  t   c 03:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED gives as meaning 6b "slang. 		(a) trans. To bring (an aircraft) down into the sea in an emergency.  		(b) intr. To come down into the sea in an emergency." so it specifically mentions the sea. Of course dictionaries describe, they don't prescribe, so if fliers use it otherwise than this, then the OED is incomplete. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the etymology has anything to do with landing in the English Channel, which I have heard described as "The Ditch" in the same way as the Atlantic is sometimes called "The Pond". The first overseas flight for new pilots in WWI would have been across the Channel and Battle of Britain pilots were frequently shot down into it. A possibility? Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Me again. After a bit of Googling, I've found that it is indeed RAF slang....
 * The Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: Colloquialisms and Catchprases by Eric Partridge, Paul Beale says "1) To throw overboard (into the sea: see next entry): nautical ca. 1870. Bowen; Granville. 2) To land (an aircraft) on the sea: RAF since ca. 1939. 3) To discard (something no longer useful): since ca. 1942: orig. RAF then Services' and gen. coll." Eric Partridge also wrote a "Dictionary of RAF Slang" in 1945, so should know what he's talking about.
 * Also The Mariner's Mirror: the Journal of the Society for Nautical Research, Volumes 63-64 says "The Ditch. The new Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (AG volume, published 1972) gives under ditch sbl 2.c. '(a) Naval slang. The sea; (b) RAF slang. The English Channel or the North Sea'."
 * Lastly R. A. F.: the Story of a British Fighter Pilot (publ 1941) says "We lost Bill Bradley, and Marshall bailed out— fell in the ditch and was picked up by a Navy motor boat." Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one more; Illustrated London News and Sketch, 1919 says "If they 'fall into the ditch', as the aviators' slang has it, there they must stop until some kind ship comes along and pulls them out." Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Français
Bonjour! Quick question: Yesterday I volunteered for our local Bastille Day celebration, selling various France-themed merchandise, and some of our customers spoke French (yes, there are French people even in Tennessee, I was surprised too). I wanted to say "Your coffee will be [ready in] a moment", and I said "Il faut un moment pour le café". Was this correctly idiomatic French? OR Is there a better way to say it? thnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.88.206 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They'd've understood you unless they were trying very hard not to. Et parce qu'ils etaient dans les etats unis, il n'y en aurait rien plus important que l'essayer entendre, non? μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But he didn't ask if it was merely understandable, he asked if it was idiomatic French and if there was a better way to say it. Angr (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not a native French speaker (if there are any here, speak up!) but it is the first foreign language I learned in school. I would not have blinked.  It is certainly not unidiomatic.  I suppose I might have said faudra une minute instead of faut un moment, but that's only if you are looking for something forced for the sake of argument. μηδείς (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say: Votre [ton] café sera bientôt prêt, Votre [ton] café sera prêt dans quelques instants/dans un instant, or Votre [ton] café sera prêt dans une ou deux minutes. If I hear Il faut un moment pour le café (perfect French), I understand: "We need to keep some time for a coffee break". And, for the record, I would say: Et parce qu'ils étaient aux Etats-Unis, rien n'aurait été plus important que de faire un effort pour comprendre, non ?. — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. μηδείς (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More translations in my previous post. — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks (Merci;)) One more quick q: To say "Next!" (think the line at the DMV and the window person calling loudly for the next person), I said "Le prochain, s'il vous plait!". The volunteer next to me used "Ensuite!", which I understood as "Then!", unless it is an idiomatic usage? What would be the correct way to say this, preserving the concision of the English "Next!" which "Le prochain client, s'il vous plait!", while unquestionably correct, does not? merci de nouveau ;] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.88.206 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be concise we say in French: Suivant !, Au suivant !, but it could be a little bit rude. To be more polite say: Personne suivante s'il vous plaît !, Client suivant s'il vous plaît !. Aside, "''Au suivant" is a famous song by Jacques_Brel (for adult only !) — AldoSyrt (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

'Folk psychology'
I'm looking for a term for 'folk psychology' - the way we all form opinions about others mental states, about how others minds work etc - as opposed to psychology as a scientific discipline. We all do it, all the time, and there is a tendency to just call it 'psychology'. In most contexts this is fine, and you can tell what is meant from the context. In the particular case I'm interested in, I need a word for 'folk psychology' which makes it clear that I don't mean the scientific discipline. Does anyone have any suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The term that is generally used in the literature is Theory of mind -- I'm personally not very fond of it but that is the term that is most commonly used. Looie496 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

--- Headology 86.148.163.239 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC) what about pop psychology? 24.92.88.206 (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read an academic book by a psychologist which used the exact term "folk psychology", so if you find "theory of mind" too much like gobbledigook, your own term has at least some pedigree, and is quite clear. If, on the other hand, you want the academic term that is most current, listen to others - this was just something I was reading once. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 'Theory of mind' is rather obscure for the context - if I can find "folk psychology" used in the sort of context I need, perhaps that will do ('pop psychology' isn't quite right for the context, I think). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Easy French translation
For an article I am writing, I need a translation from French of parts of this book. My basic French is sufficient for most parts, but I got stuck with the following sentence and would appreciate help with translation: Le 8* mois de la 12* année (74O), Hirotsugu ayant fait de faux rapports sur plusieurs affaires importantes, Makibi et Genbō représentèrent au Daïri qu'il devait s'attendre à une révolte, s'il ne renvoyait pas Hirotsugu. (from page 70 of the book). "Daïri" is the Emperor. bamse (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "On the 8th month of the 12th year (740), after Hirotsugu had made false reports on several important matters, Makibi and Genbō warned Daïri that he should expect a rebellion if he did not send Hirotsugu back." --Viennese Waltz 23:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe there is a better word for "send back". Some background information: Makibi and Genbō were together with Daïri (the emperor) in the capital. Hirotsugu had been exiled (given a government position in a distant place) two years earlier (under the same emperor). So the meaning of "send back" could be something like "dismiss Hirotsugu from his government position in exile and give him a position close to or in the capital." ? bamse (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Recalled"?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that is definitely better than my "send back". --Viennese Waltz 17:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dismiss" or "fire" would be my translation. "Renvoyer" does not translate to "recall", the author would have used "rappeler" to meant that. French speaker here. 194.6.163.244 (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenation of French double-barrelled given names
What's the deal with hyphenation of French double-barrelled given names? I know there was a decree from on high (the Académie, I suppose) at some stage, but I don't know how widely that was adopted. I still often see a mish-mash. Jean Sylvain Bailly is a case in point. It's Jean Sylvain in the title and the infobox, but Jean-Sylvain the lede and some (but not all) of the sources. Even the French article has both styles, so that's not much help. Is there a general rule that all such names should now be following, or does it depend on the case, and how would one ever know if the sources can't even agree? Merci. -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  22:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In Québec, it is a matter of parental (or individual once they are old enough) choice. I have a friend Jean-Guy and a friend Yves Marie; they are both called by the two names. I would think that it is how they designate themselves, and we can find in sources, that should matter to Wikipedia. Bielle (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For M. Bailly, here is something that appears to be quasi-official, at least. My looking about comes up with no hyphen to hyphen at about 3:1. (I know: WP:OR) Bielle  (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In France, in modern French, if it is a compond given name, it must be hyphened "Jean-Paul" (even officially in Quebec), otherwise they are two distinct given names (In France we can give more than one given name, but, in the current life, we use only the first one - dans l'ordre de l'Etat Civil). But it is only since the middle of the 19th century that this rule is applied, according to the French WP. — AldoSyrt (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, AldoSyrt. I wonder how it is policed? I'm envisaging a Monty Python-esque skit: "You called him "Yves Marie? Let me see that written down." "No hyphen? Aha? To the Bastille!" Thanks for the cites; information is always better than opinions and guess work. Bielle  (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not policed, but your passport or ID will show either one or the other. If your passport shows Yves-Marie, then everyone will assume that is your first name. If your passport shows Yves Marie, then it is assumed that they are your first and second names. And everyone will call you Yves by default unless you correct them. They might ask you: "why not hyphen, then?". I certainly would ask, I'd be curious. --Lgriot (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But who goes around checking their new acquaintances' passports or other ID to discover their true names. If someone was introduced to me as "Yves-Marie", I'd assume this was a hyphenated name and not "Yvesmarie" or a person who goes by both his first and middle names, as sometimes happens.  If they were introduced as "Yves", and I later discovered their middle name was Marie, I wouldn't take it upon myself to connect the two names with a hyphen.  If I had any doubt and I needed to know, I'd check with them.
 * Thanks to Bielle and the others for the replies. What I get is that if there's any doubt, consult reliable sources.  That's always good advice.  My only concern, as I pointed out in my question, is that this isn't a great deal of help when reliable sources disagree among themselves.  But that isn't confined to this issue.  With historical people, the issue is affected by the change in the French rules about name-hyphenation, the details of which I'm extremely hazy about, but I have read about somewhere, sometime.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rendering of transliterated Hebrew word
I'm transferring a section of a book to HTML. I always try to be correct with Unicode characters (accented characters, ligatures, em dashes, etc.), so this word I'm encountering is vexing me. It's the Hebrew word for prophet, "nabi", and I've put a scan of how it's printed here.

So I have a few issues with this. Is that "a" just a standard "a" with an acute accent ("á")? The angle seems different than how I usually see it printed, but that might just be due to the typeface. As for the "i"... that looks like an "i" with a circumflex ("î") except for that odd accent in the upper right. Is there a unique character in Unicode that represents this, or would I have to combine two or three characters to make it? I'm assuming that's not just an apostrophe, it's an accent of some sort.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that is the usual transcription for the letter aleph. It is normally transcribed as an apostrophe. The Hebrew word is נביא . -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha. So then I would transcribe the HTML as "n&amp;#225;b&amp;#238;&amp;#702;" (n&#225;b&#238;&#702;)?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't thin #702 (unicode 02BE - "MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING") is particularly appropriate: As KageTora says, it is usually simply an apostrophe. In phonetic transcription, a glottal stop (UNICODE 0242) is sometimes used.
 * On another subject, the accented vowels used in your transcription are not standard for Hebrew transliteration, and have no particular meaning today. I'm guessing that you are preparing a faithful transcription, and so wish to preserve the accents; but if the purpose is to be informative rather than faithful, it would be better to omit them. --ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. That'll teach me to listen to Wikipedia! Seriously, our aleph article says to use U+02BE, so that's where I got that. But I'll change it to U+2019 if you guys think that's more appropriate.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use the apostrophe. It's functioning as a letter, not as a punctuation mark. That's what the modifier letters are there for. However, I wouldn't use the modifier letter right half ring at U+02BE to transcribe this passage from the book. I'd use the modifier letter apostrophe at U+02BC. It looks the same as a curly apostrophe to the naked eye, but the software will know the difference and won't treat it as a punctuation mark. Angr (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with you, but, again, this contradicts our articles modifier letter right half ring and aleph... maybe those should be changed?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about faithfully digitizing what the original source document says, not about the optimal transliteration of Hebrew aleph. I'd never recommend using U+2144 TURNED SANS-SERIF CAPITAL Y for the close back unrounded vowel either, but when I'm digitizing a source text that uses an upside-down capital Y to stand for that sound, I follow the source as faithfully as Unicode will let me (the letter is serifed in the original, while the Unicode character is defined as sans-serif, but otherwise it's close enough). Likewise here: if I were preparing my own text about Hebrew, I'd use the half-ring (or even the IPA glottal stop symbol ʔ) to transliterate aleph; but if I'm digitizing this previously published text, I'd use the modifier letter apostrophe. As for the diacritic over the "a", it's hard to tell if it's intended as an acute, a macron, or something ad-hoc in between. A macron is more usual in the transliteration of Hebrew, but as we've seen this author doesn't necessarily follow the most common transliteration. Does the text use either unambiguous macrons or unambiguous acutes in other contexts? Angr (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The transliteration is, in fact, pretty normal and the accented vowels do have a clear meaning - the author is transliterating Tiberian Hebrew, which is really what philologists normally do, when not specifically treating modern Jews and modern Israel (Wikipedia is weird in using modern Hebrew transliterations in the leads of articles concerning Biblical characters etc.). The diacritic over the a must definitely be a macron (the similarity to an acute is most likely to be due to some technical defect) and designates the length of the vowel (well, actually, the rounded quality of the vowel in Tiberian times). The diacritic over the i is a circumflex and designates the length/quality of the vowel and the fact that the vowel is marked with a separate consonantal letter Yodh in the Hebrew script (Biblical Hebrew orthography). The final apostrophe-like letter is, as others have said, aleph and is normally transcribed as something similar to an apostrophe, although it's true that some use the IPA glottal stop sign and some use the half-ring. The apostrophe-like sign is OK in the wiki article Proto-Semitic language, for example. The only thing missing is that the b should have been underlined to show that it is transformed into a fricative and does not retain its original stop quality (in terms of Hebrew orthography, it doesn't have a dagesh) - perhaps the author was aiming at a pre-Tiberian pronunciation, preceding the fricativization. All in all, I'd render the transcription as nābîʼ. What this means technically for HTML purposes, I don't know.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)