Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 July 3

= July 3 =

Sas Thelimatos tou Emon - seeking translation.
A phrase / spell, used in conjunction with a ancient Greek Necklace that controls the wearer via overpowering suggestion.

Was a previous user question, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2008_July_10) but the user didn't have the correct spelling of the phrase. Was used in Season 3 Relic Hunter, episode 10 : All Choked Up.

If someone could translate it, I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baelrath (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the Greek is something like "σας θελήματος τοῦ εμον". Google Translate renders this as "you will of adhesion", but my best guess is that it means "your will is mine".  I'm not sure it is actually grammatically correct -- or it could be that Google Translate is going astray by treating it as modern Greek. Looie496 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

-Sweet, thanks. that would make sense. i tried doing a google translate but i couldn't get it to work. Baelrath (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

At and in
Please shed some light on the correct use of at and in.


 * I saw a tiger at the zoo.
 * I saw a tiger in the zoo.
 * I met him at the restaurant.
 * I met him in the restaurant.

Which one is correct and which one is wrong? --111Engo (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's English, where correct and wrong can be nebulous concepts, but I prefer at the zoo and in the restaurant. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain so that it becomes clear to me. Thanks. --111Engo (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "At the restaurant" could mean on the footpath outside, or inside - whereas "in the restaurant" is more specifically inside. The tiger examples are virtually indistinguishable in meaning, and neither is wrong.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I interpret the tiger example the same way. That is, "at the zoo" could mean the parking lot, so we'd better say "in the zoo", unless we want to risk getting mauled. StuRat (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So, for a general rule:


 * "In" = "inside".


 * "At" = "at the general location of".


 * Perform those substitutions above, and they should make the difference clear. StuRat (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say "at the zoo" and "in the restaurant." I have no idea why -- it just sounds right. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This little blurb might explain the subtlety on "zoo". The animals are "in" the zoo (as residents), the humans are "at" the zoo (to visit). Although either one would be understood to mean that you saw a tiger in its cage while visiting the zoo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And in America we would be more likely to say "at" the restaurant, although we might say "in" the restaurant if, for example, we were staying at a hotel that had a built-in restaurant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I have found this which says at is used for a point and in is used for an enclosed space. But I think this statement is very naive. We say "Eiffel Tower is situated in Paris", not "Eiffel Tower is situated at Paris". But Paris is not an enclosed space. Right now I am even more confused. --111Engo (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe not in a glass bubble, but still an entity with a boundary of some kind. A building being "in" a city is pretty consistent. The Empire State Building is "in" New York City and "at" 5th Avenue and 34th Street. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That construct also helps explain the times we would say we're "at" the office vs. "in" the office. Keep in mind that in the Romance languages "at" and "to" are the same word (a in Spanish, por ejemplo, derived from the Latin ad) and indicate a point, relatively speaking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The differences are so subtle that English speakers don't always agree (for example, StuRat says "in the zoo" but I prefer "at the zoo"). "In", as 111Engo said, is used to specify where you are in relation to something (you are not on top of the restaurant, you are in the restaurant), and I always tend to think of "at" as being within a close proximity to a certain place, and not quite as precise.  "I'm at the school" usually means that I'm inside the school, but could also easily mean that I am wandering around in the football field, or am standing on the sidewalk in front of the school.  One note, in response to 111Engo; I would very rarely say that something is at a city, and when I do, I tend to think that it's parked just outside the city, so to speak.  If the Roman legion is at Rome, I think that that are standing around the walls, seiging or preparing to attack, or whatever they are doing, not already inside the city.  That being said, it's such a small distinction, as I say, and have heard other people say "Oh, I'm at New York City for the weekend", even though "in" would make more sense now that I am thinking about it.

The expressions with "in" are more specific, with "at" expressing general proximity and "in" specifying containment by some boundary.

But everyone knows that la tour Eiffel est à Paris, not in Paris. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As others have said, it's subtle. But I believe there is a tendency to prefer "at" when the location is an institution or event as well as a location: at the opera, at the theatre, at the office, at the Houses of Parliament, at the station. But contrariwise "in hospital" ("in the hospital" in the US), "in prison". The opposition of UK "at school", US "in school", shows that there is unlikely to be any simple rule. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Medeis raises an interesting point, in that in French (or should that be "at French"?) the place determines the preceding word. You live "à Paris" but "en France". You also go "à Paris" but "en France", whereas in English the action determines the preposition, you go to and live in. In my opinion, sentence 1 could have either in or at, both are short hand. ("I saw the tiger [whilst I was] at the zoo" and "I saw the tiger [who was] in the zoo"). For meeting, "met at the restaurant" implies met outside, possibly followed by going in together, whereas "met in" would imply going in and joining up inside. Sometimes a useful distinction when making plans. 90.214.166.169 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding dates to people with titles
Is there a standard way of placing dates after names? Like in this example should it be: "John Bloggins, Lord Bloggins (d. 1333)", or "John Bloggins (d. 1333), Lord Bloggins"? I was going to add some dates to names in the body of an article and was wondering if there's a standard way of doing it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually, just look at plenty of articles and follow the norm. In this case, follow James Callaghan rather than Dido (singer). The Wikipedia standard for someone who is a lord (usually Baron, Earl etc not vaguely Lord) is to include the title as part of the name, in your case "John Bloggins, Baron(etc.) Bloggins (d. 1333)" and in this case the born/died does not split the name in half.  If you were going to write "John Bloggins (d. 1333) was a Welsh blacksmith and axe-murderer who later became Lord Bloggins", you would use your second example.  Sussexonian (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just noticed you said in the body of an article.  But I don't think this changes my suggestion: if you are writing "John Bloggins, Lord Bloggins" in that style, and this may later become a link to an article titled John Bloggins, Lord Bloggins you would not want to place the born/died in the middle of the name.  Sussexonian (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sussexonian. Putting the date between the name and title does seem out of place. I'll put it after. It's just that I noticed it with the date in between in some ODNB bio a while ago, and it stuck out to me and made me wonder.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

English exam: Help!!!
Hey guys, I just ran into a bit of a problem with my English Comprehension exam, and was wondering if any of you were willing to help me out.

It isn't much - just a simple fill in the blank multiple choice question that seems to have more than one adequate answer. Here's the question:

During the exam I chose (b) try to see things without prejudice, but I just found out that the correct answer is actually (c) refer to muliple sources of information. I can see why (c) can be the answer, since the sentence that comes right after the blank mentions the method of comparing and contrasting multiple news sources. But I'm not sure I agree with it though. Yeah sure, refering to multiple sources is definitely mentioned in the paragraph, but can it actually account for the main idea of the entire passage? In my opinion, the thesis of this passage is closer to thinking critically about every source, and considering every viewpoint of a subject without any prejudice, rather than refering to different sources. I mean, look at the supporting detail sentences that come after the blank: they're all pointing to eliminating your bias and try to see things objectively, right? Besides, there's no reason why (b) can't fit the blank: to me, the passage flows perfectly with (b) filling the blank.

The reason why I'm asking for help here is because I'm not as articulate and eloquent when in comes to explaining my thought process, and thought that if I could get gain support from native speakers or people who are more fluent and have much better reading comprehension skills than me, and can form arguments into persuasive writing, I'd have a much firmer ground to stand on when I go to my English teacher. I'm a Korean high school student living in Korea by the way. And this question apparently comes directly from an English Comprehension Exercise book that is definitely not included in our curriculum nor in our list of books we were supposed to study for the exam.

Anyone who thinks I'm right and is willing to help me out, please do so: I'm going to need every help that I can get. Just a few sentences (or longer if possible) will do. Love you guys. Thnx. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your answer isn't right. When you "try to see things without prejudice", that means you don't form an opinion until all the facts are in.  Thus, the sentence would mean "Improving critical thinking skills requires a continuous effort, one method of which is to not form an opinion until all the facts are in before formulating an opinion."  That doesn't make any sense (obviously you can't form an opinion before forming an opinion).  Also, the "one method" part implies that it's optional, but avoiding prejudice isn't optional to critical thinking, while multiple sources is.  StuRat (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always a good idea to approach exam questions in a structured manner. As with most multiple choice questions, there are two answers which are obviously wrong, two that are nearly right, and the correct answer.  (a) and (e) are obviously wrong - the text doesn't mention discussion with other people at all (a), and (e) is the exact opposite of "critical thinking".  That leaves us with (b), (c), and (d).  (d) is an accurate summary of the next sentence in the passage, but it's not the right answer, as _choosing_ a trustworthy news source isn't a "continuous effort".  (b) is wrong for the reasons that StuRat gives - if the sentence didn't have "before formulating an opinion" after the blank, (b) would be a valid answer, but, as it stands, (b) creates a contradiction.  That leaves us with (c), which is the right answer. Tevildo (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, I beg to differ: prejudice and opinions are similar but slightly different concepts.

According to Wikipedia, prejudice is " a prejudgment, an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy. The word prejudice is most commonly used to refer to preconceived judgments toward people or a person because of race, social class, gender, ethnicity, homelessness, age, disability, obesity, religion, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics. It also means beliefs without knowledge of the facts[1] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence." whereas "In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument,....."

You see, while both do mean a sort of a subjective judgement you have towards something, prejudice plays sightly on a more subconcious level without any hard evidence or adequate facts, whereas opinions are on a more conscious level and have reasonable arguments to support it. Therefore, you could say that prejudice (preconcieved judgements) can grow into opinions (concieved judgement) through reasonable evaluation and analysis of evidence and arguments.

Besides, if you were right, how will you be able to explain this sentence in the above passage: "Furthermore, thinking critically about news stories also allows you to identify your own internal prejudices and understand how they affect your opinions." Understand how prejudices affect your opinions - this suggests that prejudice is not the same thing as an opinion.

Also, other than the second sentence, the other sentences all refer to considering every viewpoint of ""one"" source of information, not several. Wouldn't that mean that (b) can also be the answer? Johnnyboi7 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that prejudice was opinion, I said it was when you "form an opinion before all the facts are in". With this definition, the line in question becomes "Furthermore, thinking critically about news stories also allows you to identify your own internal tendencies to form opinions before the facts are in and understand how they affect your opinions." StuRat (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is very simple, you were taking a test on reading comprehension, not applied epistemology. The point was not to give the "true" answer as you saw it but the answer which best expressed your comprehension of the writer's intention--option C. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would go even further than that - the objective is to get the answer that's on the answer sheet, not the "right answer" in some absolute sense. This is _always_ an issue with exams in the humanities, which the OP would do well to bear in mind. Tevildo (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The 3rd sentence starts Furthermore,.... which isolates the 2nd sentence as the only sentence that directly supports the first sentence. The correct answer (c) makes the first two sentences a cohesive whole that defines the one method. The rest of the text comments on the process of formulating an opinion which is something that comes later. BTW I disagree with it but no matter. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Basic Japanese Counting
Ever since I went to live in Japan when I was 4-7 years old, I have had questions regarding Japanese numbers. I was put in a Japanese-speaking school, and learned that most people from where I lived (Hiroshima) counted from one to ten saying "ichi ni san shi go roku shichi hachi kyuu jyuu", but that there were alternate ways of saying the numbers four, seven, and nine, so that you could also count to ten saying "ichi ni san yon go roku nana hachi ku jyuu". So...


 * 1) I find it strange that a language has two distinct ways of saying a basic number like 4. What are the conditions that allowed two simultaneous designations for the same number to prevail in the Japanese language for so long?
 * 2) If your dialect has you saying "yon" for four, do you also have to say "nana" for seven and "ku" for nine? Or are there dialects that only use one or two of the three rather than all three?
 * 3) Where in Japan do the majority of the people use "yon" instead of "shi", where do they use "nana" instead of "shichi", and where do they use "ku" instead of "kyuu"? Depending on the answer to question 2, there might be significant overlap between these areas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.5.213 (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you look at our article on Japanese numbers? It has some details.  &#x2013; b_jonas 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not unusual for a language to have different words for numbers depending on grammatical gender - French has un and une for 1, Welsh has dau and dwy for 2, tri and tair for 3, and pedwar and pedair for 4 (come to that, Welsh has two completely separate counting systems, decimal and vigesimal). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to tell the usage of those numerals as there is no rule. April is always Shigatsu, July is Shichigatsu, and September is Kugatsu. July fourth is Sichigatsu Yokka, not Shichigatsu Shi-nichi. But four seasons is always 四季/shiki and four-years-old is always yonsai. You just have to remember them. See also Japanese counter words. Oda Mari (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two types of numerals in Japanese, native numerals and Sino-Japanese numerals, see Japanese numerals. It is not limited to "four", "seven", and "nine". Shi, shichi, ku are Sino-Japanese numerals; they are go-on readings of Chinese numerals of 四, 七, 九. Yon and nana are native numerals. Kyū is also a Sino-Japanese numeral but it is a kan-on reading of 九. So why these numerals are mixed into go-on numerals? Yo or yon is ued to avoid using shi because shi is homophone of 死 "death" (see also tetraphobia). According to ja:漢数字, João Rodrigues recorded such usage in 1604. For other numbers, it is recent development and it is not to be misheard. Shichi might be mishaerd as ichi or shi and ku as roku. Ōtsuki Fumihiko noted such usage in 1917. This is for Tokyo and according to another source, yon, nana, kyū was already used in Osaka in Edo period. --Kusunose 10:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vietnamese is similar because it has its own numerals and also often uses Chinese derived numbers, especially in set phrases and expressions. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The context-specificity of this has been mentioned, but when Japanese people are simply counting, like "one, two, three, four ..." in English, does everyone always use the "Preferred reading" column at Japanese numerals? 86.160.214.46 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)