Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 February 8

= February 8 =

Punctuation help
Can someone please tell me if this grouping of sentences is okay? I feel like there should be at least one common in there: "What makes the perfect prince? Is it his bravery in battle or the sagely laws he passes? His great compassion or the punishment he meters out to the wicked?"

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your third question is not a complete sentence, you'd need to start it with "Is it..." again to make it so. There is a verb (meters?  I assume you mean "metes"), but the verb is part of a dependent clause, "the punishment (that) he metes out to the wicked" (the "that" being implied).  You still need a proper subject and verb, which is why you'd have to start the third sentence with "Is it..."  to be gramatically correct.  But colloquially, especially in conversational English, your sentences don't seem unnatural or odd.  You could also fix it by putting a comma in place of the second question mark, so it read "Is it his bravery in battle or the sagely laws he passes, his great compassion or the punishment he metes out to the wicked?  -- Jayron  32  06:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Sagely" is an adverb, but we need the adjective "sage" before "laws". Also, were you asking about at least one comma (rather than one "common")?  The third sentence is not a complete sentence if read in isolation, but in the context of the overall utterance, it's fine.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sagely" here would be an adjective; it's modifying "laws". I've never heard "sage" used except as a noun, so the "-ly" is a marker that it's a modification of the original noun form.  Nyttend (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, that's all. Neener neener. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Jack and I misread sagely as derived from the adjective sage, but it's better read as derived from the noun sage — like kingly. —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would put commas after "battle" and "compassion", they help the rhythm of the sentences. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put any commas in these sentences. They're fine the way they are. Each or separates only two terms, so there's no need for a comma before it. Angr (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Very few princes pass laws, sage or otherwise.--Shantavira|feed me 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or go into battle, or mete out punishment. It seems to be from an antique context.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Prince Harry and Prince Andrew both went into battle. Angr (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My immediate presumption was that it's from The Prince, of which perhaps Ghostexorcist is making a new translation, although I haven't spotted the passage in question in a brief skim of my 1961 version translated by George Bull. Assuming I'm correct, Machiavelli uses the term "prince" to mean any chief ruler of an independent state, whether they attained that position by heredity, conquest, election or other means. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't take the word "Prince" too literally: for example, in her day, Elizabeth I regarded both herself and The Pope as 'Princes'. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolting, disgusting behaviour
What conclusions can I draw about a person who uses these two words about another. They seem to be very tummy orientated but taste is not involved. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "tummy orientated"? Roger (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a preoccupation with isolation is indicated. The absence of reference to taste suggests a blind spot to the possibility of social activity. Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you changed what you had written rather than added to it. Both answers were helpful to me but I think the first was closer to the mark. If it helps, the person is histrionic, narcissistic, addicted to dope and very fat. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One way or another, you've just told us a lot more with this post, than the original question. I would say, for the original question, no conclusions. You mean to say that he is using a visceral description, which means his vocabulary may be lacking, but modern English seems to prefer the use of simple, immediate language ("soft as", "they crucify the English language", "human rights groups slammed the suggestion", and so on). Human consciousness is returning to the limbic system, but I digress, IBE (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I was just thinking that self-examination of a psychological nature could correlate to a degree of progress of food through the body, in the language references we use. Those psychologically troubled may avoid the self-examination that the more robust population may be capable of addressing. Thus when lavishing displeasure on another we who are psychologically damaged may prefer the more objectifying language associated with the more distant travel of the food through the body. I think you were suggesting that in your question, and I think it is a good observation. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mongolian (cyrillic) help
Hi! I want to type in the addresses at http://www.mongolianairlines.com/contacts There are three street addresses. What do they look like typed? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you want. 109.97.141.213 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean transliterated? (1) 14257 Narny zam 15, Sүhbaatar dүүrjeg, Ulaanbaatar hot, Mongol uls. (2) Ulaanbaatar 15160, Chingjeltjei dүүrjeg, Zhigzhidzhavyn gudamzh 3, Bod' camhag, 1 davhar. (3) Mөrөn sum, Tөv 4 zam, 50-100 zochid buudal 1 davhar. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks for your help too! Because the third address was not translated into English, I included the latin transliteration with the cyrillic in the photo request for the Moron ticket office WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cyrillic:
 * 14257 Нарны зам 15, Сүхбаатар дүүрэг, Улаанбаатар хот, Монгол улс
 * Улаанбаатар 15160, Чингэлтэй дүүрэг, Жигжиджавын гудамж 3, Бодь цамхаг, 1 давхар
 * Мөрөн сум, Төв 4 зам, 50-100 зочид буудал, 1 давхар
 * Elaborating on Pp.paul.4's comment: Mongolian Cyrillic <ө> (<өө>) and <ү> (<үү>) are usually transliterated "ö" ("öö") and "ü" ("üü"). An <э> represents a plain "e" in Mongolian, whereas the iotated "e" is written <е> - so it is <е>, not <э>, that is normally transliterated "ye" (or "je", in the fashion of German and some other languages). Also, <ж> and <з> are not quite like they're in Russian; <ж> /tʃ/ and <ч> /tʃʰ/ on one part, and <з> /ts/ and <ц> /tsʰ/ on another, are pairs of a non-aspirated and an aspirated consonant, similarly to the pairs that are there for example in Chinese. That's why <ж> is standardly rendered "j" (President of Mongolia Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj). The <х> (IPA: /x/) is often "kh" (cf. the name of the President again), like the Russian <х> is, or scientifically it could also be "x". And also, <й> is usually rendered "i" rather than "y" (the President again), because, unlike in Russian, it's not a consonant, but rather it's a part of the orthographical representation of a long vowel (ий) or of a diphthong (эй, үй, etc). So I'd go for:
 * 14257 Narny zam 15, Sükhbaatar düüreg, Ulaanbaatar khot, Mongol uls
 * Ulaanbaatar 15160, Chingeltei düüreg, Jigjidjavyn gudamj 3, Bod' tsamkhag, 1 davkhar
 * Mörön sum, Töv 4 zam, 50-100 zochid buudal, 1 davkhar
 * See also Mongolian Cyrillic script. --Theurgist (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, theurgist! For the third entry, what is the description before the address? The third entry is not listed in the page's English version. Also what are the cyrillic for the descriptions of the first and second entries? (So I can use the cyrillic on the Wikimedia Commons photo request page) - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "TӨВ ОФФИС" (main/central office), "БИЛЕТИЙН ТӨВ КАСС" (central ticket office), "МӨРӨН" (this seems to mean the office in the city of Mörön.) Theurgist missed the first line in the third address, which is "Khövsgöl aimag" (lat) / " Хөвсгөл аймаг" (cyr).--Itinerant1 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I am now adding a photo request for that one too WhisperToMe (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The third descrption is "Mörön, central intersection, '50-100' hotel, first floor". Which is a bit curious because if i remember correctly, the eznis office is in the same building.

The name of the hotel is a reference to 50 degrees north, 100 degrees east, which is a position not so far away from Mörön. Yaan (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

etymology of "john" meaning toilet
I would like to know the origin of this usage. All the OED says is:

d. slang (chiefly U.S.). With lower-case initial. A lavatory, water-closet.[1735   Harvard Laws in W. Bentinck-Smith Harvard Bk. (1953) 146  No freshman shall mingo against the College wall or go into the fellows' cuzjohn.] 1932   Amer. Speech 7 333  John, johnny, a lavatory. 1946   ‘J. Evans’ Halo in Blood xvi. 181,  I‥made a brief visit to the john. 1959   C. MacInnes Absolute Beginners 54   ‘You poor old bastard,’ I said to the Hoplite, as he sat there on my john. 1972   Last Whole Earth Catalog (Portola Inst.) 247/3   Every time you take a dump or a leak in a standard john, you flush five gallons of water out with your piddle. 1973   Black World June 19   They gave me my Status Symbol  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.113.48 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) From http://www.etymonline.com/: "john: 'toilet,' 1932, probably from jakes, used for 'toilet' since 15c." 'Jakes' gives us "jakes: 'a privy,' mid-15c., genitive singular of jack (n.)." And 'Jack' gives "jack (n.): late 14c., jakke 'a mechanical device,' from the masc. name Jack. The proper name was used in M.E. for 'any common fellow' (mid-14c.), and thereafter extended to various appliances replacing servants (1570s)."
 * So the origin is C15th 'a mechanical device'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "any common fellow" - well, really! --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Not to worry, mon -- it's the opposite in your hemisphere ... )--184.100.88.44 (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One wonders whether the parents of the US author John Jakes were oblivious or defiant. As I encountered his books before I became very aware of both terms (one being foreign, the other antique) his name's unfortunate aspect never occurred to me until now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Then again, if your name is Thomas Crapper, what other career is open to you besides plumbing ? StuRat (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gambling? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.161 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word 'that'
Can someone else with more experience chime in here? I do not doubt my OCD with regard to use of the word 'that' ever since my English prof beat it into me. Removing conversational/subordinate clause 'that' is a more professional presentation which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia. Does anyone have a strong feeling or hurt feelings if one were to remove extra unnecessary 'that's? I did that on a few topics today as I noticed them (nails on chalk board) and they were reversed by Reichsfurst. I am not falling on my sword over it but do not see harm in making the entries more professional like fixing spelling and punctuation changes.Justify265 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. But grammar is not a strong point for many. Collect (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that wikipedia common use seems to be in favour of keeping the word 'that' if only to reduce ambiguity. I would point to the page Basic_copyediting, where the second sentence says the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. It would seem silly to have one policy on these two articles and a different one elsewhere, even on the very page that deals with copyediting. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a look at only one one your changes, which removed a couple of instances of 'that', and neither worked for me. So your "more professional" value judgement is for me "distinctly less pleasant to read". I tend to doubt that there's any grammatical law (or lore) on your side. Perhaps you had a duff and idiosynchratic professor? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So without a hard and fast rule for or against 'that' use, it does seem rather unproductive to undo every edit made by another editor removing 'that'. Perhaps since this is the defining reference for such matters is there a professorial or other higher power than can make a definitive stance on whether to remove 'that' if an editor takes the time to do so or for editors to ignore the added 'that's going forward?Justify265 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by consensus rather than command from 'higher power' - I think we'd be best to leave as is without a much wider debate. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I also have a suspicion this is one of those shared language things ... USians, in my estimation, are more likely to drop thats (and various similar words) than are Brits; along the lines of "He said Friday that..." versus "He said on Friday that...". USian newspaper headlines ahve always appealed to me for exactly this reason. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Higher power meaning someone with more definitive knowledge on the subject to help gain consensus. We do not seem to have consensus so far.  I agree on the USians versus Brits although perhaps not as strikingly different as gray vs grey. A for American and E for England right?Justify265 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Agree with Tagishsimon - for me the changes show, as Fowler puts it, "the unpleasantness of ill-advised omission." Fowler says that where substantival clauses are concerned, certain verbs "prefer that expressed," while some "prefer that omitted", and others "vary according to the tone of the context." Seems agreeable?

In F's opinion, verbs that prefer that include announce and state (i.e. "words that stand on their dignity and will not dispense with the attendance of that."). He says it is unusual with e.g. believe, say, suppose and think. It can be used or omitted, according to tone of context, with e.g. consider, declare, hear, know, propose, say, see, understand.

Fowler suggests adding to his lists for one's own use (so we're all going to do this, right?), and says the question (to that or not to that) may arise with many more verbs than he cites. He notes (in my ragged 1965 second edition of MEU) that "the tendency is to omit that, and some of the words in the first list [verbs that like to hook up with thats] may be thought to have become eligible for transfer to the third [verbs that swing either way]." And he adds, ominously: "Perhaps this is due to U.S. influence, where that is omitted much more freely than it is here . . . [and] this is having an effect on British journalism."

My Guardian stylebook only has this to say: "do not use [that] automatically after the word 'said', but it can be useful: you tend to read a sentence such as 'he said nothing by way of an explanation would be forthcoming' as 'he said nothing by way of an explanation' and then realise that it does not say that at all; 'he said that nothing by way of an explanation would be forthcoming' is much clearer."

Klarity is King. Writegeist (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * May we please have links to, or examples of, the offending "that" ? StuRat (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * , --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in the entry on "contact clauses" in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. They discuss the history of the so-called "omission of that", which many prescriptive grammarians condemned (Samuel Johnson called it a "colloquial barbarism"). In this light, it seems strange that your professor would consider it the that-less version to be less conversational and more professional.
 * Of course, we shouldn't pay much heed to eighteenth-century grammarians, and there are many cases where it is perfectly normal not to use that. But I agree with Writegeist that clarity should be foremost, and whenever doubt arises I would veer on the side of using that (and I'm from the US). I find some of your changed sentences to sound especially unnatural, e.g.: "During the interview, Gingrich explained to Van Susteren Gregory's question was 'a hypothetical baloney question'." If you are looking for a general rule, consider what the MWDEU says at the end of their entry: "[absence of that] is probably relatively more common in casual and general prose and relatively less common in prose that aims to fly high; it is probably more common after some verbs (as believe, hope, say, think) than others (as assert, calculate, hold, intend)". Lesgles (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the thing that stands out as extremely unnatural to me is your statement "I find some of your changed sentences to sound especially unnatural". --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lesgles, that is what I thought instinctively. In England I really do not think that you would find the 'that' omitted from sentences. I would refer anyone to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which uses the word 'that' liberally. Reichsfurst (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh there it is 'Liberally', I must be too conservative. :)  I left any extra 'that's on Obama's page. I am still reeling from finding I am no longer a descendant of King Phillip of France.  Curse you Ancestry.com for getting my hopes up to be dashed by Wikipedia!Justify265 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jack: you're right, my sentence does sound weird, perhaps because it is missing a that! Lesgles (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, not sure where you'd fit a "that" in. Where were you thinking of putting it in?
 * My main objection is the "I find to sound " construction. It may be "correct" English, but it's very far removed from plain speaking.  It's redolent of a judge sitting very high up on a bench, peering down at the person in the dock, and saying "I find the prisoner ".  That sort of language is exquisitely inappropriate for describing how a sentence sounds.  You really do risk painting yourself as a toffee-nosed stuffshirt of the first water, which I hope is far from the truth.  A more natural way of commenting would be something like "Some of your changed sentences sound especially unnatural to me".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A way to use a that would be "I find that some of your sentences sound unnatural." We may have different ideas of appropriate style, though. For instance, I myself find the expression "toffee-nosed stuffshirt of the first water" to sound quite unnatural. ;) Lesgles (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Undubitably. I was going to extremes to make a point.  I guess I'm just totally allergic to almost any uses of "I find ...", particularly when used to describe subjective feelings or sensations.  The expression comes from contexts where a judge or coroner or inquirer has examined evidence impartially and in accordance with procedural rules, and has come to a certain view, which they announce as their formal findings.  Their own personal feelings about any of the players don't enter into it.  That is the main reason why this language is inappropriate when talking about your personal feelings/emotions or describing sensations.  Another very good reason is that it removes the speaker from their own personal experience - which is a crazy thing to do.  It would be like saying to someone you've fallen in love with "I find that I experience feelings of love in relation to you".  Rubbish.  It's got nothing to do with finding anything and everything to do with loving her/him.  The third reason is that it makes you sound judgmental; you're not one of us normal folks anymore.  You've removed yourself, and we want you back - but that's totally your call.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we are operating under different definitions of the word find, and I hope you will forgive me if I don't bow to your judgement in my usage. The OP asked for our advice, and, while not claiming to be a judge, I said that I personally found (perceived, considered) his sentences to sound unnatural. It was certainly only my opinion, but I thought that most people would agree with me, so I did not hesitate to offer it. Lesgles (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I'm not for a moment quibbling with your experience that some of the sentences sounded unnatural to you.  They did to me too.  All I'm saying is that if something strikes you as odd, or weird, or unnatural, why not just express that as simply as possible, without getting into considerations or findings.  If it's an opinion, don't couch it as a finding, because that's a rather different thing.  A coroner's opinion might be that the husband murdered the wife, but his finding might be that there's no evidence of any foul play.  Take the reverse case, where you are mightily impressed by the quality of someone's writing.  Would you say anything like "I find some of your sentences to be evocative and brilliant", or "I consider this story to have had a surprisingly strong effect on me"?  I hope not.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)