Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 January 23

= January 23 =

Chinese help
Hi! What are the characters in the street address of the China Food TV headquarters at http://www.chinafoodtv.com/cftv_images/about_photo_09.gif ? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, they are：青岛市宁夏路288号市南软件园G3楼213室. The pinyin romanisation is Qīngdǎoshì níngxiàlù 288 hào shìnán ruǎnjiànyuán G3 lóu 213 shǐ. The translation is: Qingdao City, 288 South Ningxia Road Software Complex, Building G3, Office 213. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Killing me softly with his definition
The first version of this story said that the woman was “killed” after being swept away. While I support the change to “dies” in this case, I got to wondering when someone is “killed” compared to when they just “die”. (Well, not just die; but not "killed" either.)

If she’d been involved in a car crash, or struck by a falling tree, or shot by accidental gunfire, or struck by lightning, or was a victim of murder or even manslaughter, we’d have no hesitation in saying she was killed. But if she accidentally swallowed poison, or was electrocuted at home, or was victim of a gas leak, or died in a house fire, I’m not so sure that “kill” would fit. I think we’d be more likely to say she “died”, maybe with some qualifier to avoid giving the impression that natural causes were the reason for her death.

So, what makes the difference? If a person is killed by a falling grand piano (even though this implies no intent on the part of said piano), why is a person who drowns while swimming not killed (even though this would similarly fail to imply intent on the part of the ocean)? Is it that one can point to a definite object in one case, but only to an amorphous mass of water in the other case? If so, is not a pile of poison tablets or a burning house just as definite as a grand piano? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  07:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case of passivity (in reality, not in linguistic terms). In your first list, all those things can be said to have killed the victim; in the second list, we wouldn't. Assuming that, then I'd say that was because of the passivity of the action, more like a status than an act. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think killed without a specified agent/cause implies murder or homicide. In common usage you can be "killed by a falling tree", "killed in a car crash", "killed by cancer", but if you're simply "killed" it has a narrower meaning.  In cases where the agency is implied, it's trickier, and best to be as explicit as possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit that when used with the passive ('was killed'), it does sound odd sometimes - 'a woman has been killed after being caught in a rip' sounds like she was rescued and executed afterwards (in addition to making a clumsy-sounding sentence with two passives in close-proximity - the reason, I presume, for the change). 'Kill' does tend to imply intention. However, this is not the case all of the time ('Alcohol killed him/He was killed by alcohol', 'Cleopatra was killed by poison,' etc.). If you look at List of unusual deaths, you will get 42 instances of the word 'killed' in the actual list itself - some of them sound odd, but others just fine. You may want to check them out to see if you can refine your criteria.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So where does all that leave the word "assasinated"? If someone shoots me, I'm merely "killed" or "murdered".  If someone shoots the president, he is "assasinated".  Astronaut (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of "without" to mean outside. Is it now outdated?
Is this use becoming old-fashioned. Foe example I recently wrote " ... supporting people both within and without the team", but then remembered that a lot of younger people seem to be using "outwith" in this context, which to me sounds like a "Scottishism". Sould I write " ... supporting people both within and outwith the team"? BTW I am located in Northern England if this makes a difference. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say that down south that would be a very odd usage (so would "outwith"). There'd be a strong inclination to think of "without" in its other sense. "Outside" would be a popular word in your example. I can't say if this is a change, I haven't been around long enough. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, even here in northern England, both "without" and "outwith" sound slightly odd in this context (though neither is incomprehensible). For maximum clarity, I would write either: " ... supporting people both within and outside the team", or, perhaps even better: " ... supporting people both within the team and outside it."   D b f i r s   10:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that if I use "outside" it sound more balanced if I use "inside" too - I think I'll go with " ... supporting people both inside and outside the team". -- Q Chris (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary says Outwith: (chiefly Scotland, Northern England). Sounds very odd to my southern ears. It also suggests "beyond" as an alternative. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, " ... supporting people both within the team and beyond it." sounds even better than my suggestion. I think George Harrison was playing on the double meaning when he wrote "we're all one, and life flows on within you and without you"   D b f i r s   11:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * People used to be made aware of the "outside" meaning from having the hymn "There is a green hill far away, without a city wall . . . ," explained to them, but I don't know if it's still popular. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The city of Chester has a church called St Mary's Without-the-Walls (being one of two churches called St Mary in the city, the other of which is located inside Chester city walls). Judging by the number of local jokes about the name, I'm guessing that even in Northern England (for, admittedly, a limited value of "Northern"), "without" as an antonym of "within" seems odd these days. Smurrayinchester 17:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me that for a period as a child I lived in a suburb of Canterbury, Kent called Thanington Without (it being outside the old city walls) which may have further inculcated in me the locational aspect of the word. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alnwick has a "Bondgate Without" and a "Bondgate Within". -- Q Chris (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its probably a bit archaic, but less so 45 years ago, or at least it was archaic but recognizable when George Harrison wrote "Within You Without You"; though Harrison may have been playing with the language a bit, using the non-antonymic meanings of the apparent antonyms, (c.f. my favorite pair of this type being "pissed off/pissed on"). -- Jayron  32  22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(The) Name Foundation Center for/of International Production Systems
A foundtation (let's say "The Name Foundation") has financed our new Center at our university. This Center is about research about International Production Systems. How would this Center best be called in English? My suggestion: "The Name Foundation Center for International Production Systems". Would you agree? 130.149.229.180 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds correct, although such centers often include "research" in the name ("The N. Foundation Research Center..." or "The N. Foundation Center for Research in..."). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "center of" is not wrong (there's the "Centre of African Studies" in Edinburgh, and the "Center of Military History"), but "center for" seems more frequent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If the organisation's purpose is to passively study/observe/describe "international production systems" then the "of" form is more correct; if it actively engages in creating/improving/designing such systems the "for" form is more accurate. Roger (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a point of view about "American" categorized people =)
Hi there

My name is Carlos .. yes, i know, you already read it.. Tonight, looking for a BIG MAN at wikipedia, (Carl Sagan) I see something strange in you resumed bio at left of my screen...

..." Nationality: American "...

Off course i'm glad if you put Carl in a WORLD category... but that's is not the point

I'm American too.. but i born and live in Argentina,

Under all kind of gegraphic knowledge -"AMERICA"- Goes from -Tierra del Fuego- to -Alaska- or vice-versa and be splitted in South, Central & North Americas So, i know Carl was born and live in U.S.A.

My question is: Why some articles from Wikipedia call U.S.A. as AMERICA ? when U.S.A. is just a Country INSIDE ONE of the THREE PARTS of AMERICA ?

Thanks for you time =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.11.31.128 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article American (word) addresses many of these questions. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The use of the word norteamericano is a similar phenomenon in Spanish, whereby a word essentially meaning "North American" has come to have the meaning "American/pertaining to the United States", etc.. The Spanish Wikipedia would use estadounidense in such a context, though. --  the Great   Gavini  16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a fair point, but as the article linked above points out, perhaps the key reason is that the USA is the only country in any of the Americas to actually have America in its name. Just as we don't usually say the Federal Republic of Germany, but prefer to just use Germany, so America is a handy shorthand for the United States of America. Personally I tend to prefer to use either the US, USA, or the United States in either speech or writing just to remove this potential ambiguity, but people are rarely, if ever, confused by the use of the word America/American in reference to the US and it's people. Maybe if the Federal Republic of Central America had have survived, things would be different. And perhaps you should be less worried about this, and more worried about the entire landmass being wrongly named. :) --jjron (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no potential ambiguity. Not in English.  "North America", "Central America", "Latin America", "South America" and "The Americas" all refer to particular groupings of countries, not all of which are well-defined, and some of which include the USA.  "American" can be used in conjunction with any of these groupings.  "American" can also be used to refer specifically to the USA, and that is its most common use.  But "America" by itself refers to one and only one country - the USA.  It cannot, without the addition of some qualifier, be extended to refer to any place beyond the USA.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There definitely is ambiguity. In terms of people American would generally be assumed to refer to the US, but it is an assumption, and the same with the use of America. Try reading some history texts and you'll start seeing how much more ambiguous the term becomes. It's also ambiguous in other uses, such as with American wildlife. A bird doesn't stop being from America just because it crosses into Mexico or Canada, or when it is found in more than just the US, or for that matter if it's not found in the US at all. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @JackofOz, note that Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives some definitions, the first one of which is: "1. either continent (North America or S. America) of the western hemisphere". See also this dictionary. 84.229.230.32 (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread is not about "America", it's about "American". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is about America; just read the question again if you doubt this.
 * You can find all sorts of historical word usages that have not lasted. Today, unqualified "America" means only one thing.  Does anyone rely on the Merriam-Webster definition in order to make statements like "I bought this gift on my last trip to America", when they're actually referring to a visit they made to Brazil, Guatemala or Canada?  No, of course not.  If the trip happened to include the USA, but the gift was purchased in some other country in the Americas on the same overall trip, and they made that statement, they'd be misleading their listeners into believing it was bought on the USA leg of the trip.  If we say "America", we mean the USA. If we mean any other place in the Americas, we use the relevant country's name.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Carlos (181.11.31.128) -- the big problem is that the phrase "United States" does not form a true adjective in the English language (similar to Spanish "estadounidense", Esperanto "usono" etc.), so some alternative has to be used. However, "North American" / "norteamericano" is not the answer, because in addition to being somewhat long and cumbersome, it slights and snubs the inhabitants of Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon (at an absolute minimum -- probably some others also, depending on exactly how you choose to define "North America"). AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Carlos &mdash; you geolocate to Argentina, and I assume your primary language is Spanish? I accept that in Spanish, americano describes any inhabitant of North or South America.  What you have to accept is that, in English, the word American ordinarily does not mean that, but means "of or pertaining to the United States".  You can think of americano and American as very very slight false friends.
 * I disagree slightly with AnonMoos. We could come up with a specific UnitedStatesian adjective or some such, if the need were felt.  Some people do try to use such terms, but they have never caught on.  In English, American refers to the United States, and that is just the way it is, the way the language has evolved.  You don't have to like it, but the language is resistant to reform efforts by people who think it should be different, especially ones driven from outside the language itself. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would emphasize that it isn't only English-speaking people from the U.S. itself for whom American means "from the United States". Try asking an English-speaking Canadian if he's American, and see what he says. Angr (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I just returned from a trip to Costa Rica, where I noticed a number of shops with signs indicating that they sold "Ropa americana". They pretty clearly meant "clothes from the United States" or "U.S. style clothes", because these signs sometimes included U.S. flags.  So the word americano/a sometimes refers specifically to the United States even in Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, American editors (all), would it sound better to say Nationality: USA? There is a parallel with Nationality: UK. (You can say Nationality: British, but it is less precise.) Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care that awfully much about infoboxes; it's expected that stuff is in condensed form there. So "US" would be fine with me (better than "USA").  However, when identifying a person's nationality, it should read Joe Blow is an American floomatologist, not a US floomatologist. --Trovatore (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But you wouldn't say Nationality: UK either would you? I wouldn't if I was writing/editing an article. I would either use the more specific English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or the broader British. The only real equivalent I can think of for the US is American. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@ AnonMoos. I'm curious as to who uses North American to refer only to the people of the US? A look at North America says that it usually covers the US and Canada and sometimes Greenland, Mexico, Saint Pierre et Miquelon and Bermuda. I have no problem with being called a North American but as Angr points out I wouldn't want to be called an American. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He said it's not the answer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that but they said that "..."North American" / "norteamericano" is not the answer, ... it slights and snubs the inhabitants of Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon..." and I had never heard it used that way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you're Canadian. In my experience, in Canada, "North American" means "Canadian or American", and generally does not include even "Mexican", geography notwithstanding.  From the point of view of physical geography, North America runs from Greenland to the Isthmus of Panama. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In some Spanish-speaking circles, it is or was fairly common to use norteamericano to refer to citizens or inhabitants of the U.S. AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given where I live that would explain why I had never heard it used that way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

'Note to the English-only patrol: The questioner is a Spanish-speaker and evidently speaks English with difficulty, so it makes perfect sense to reply to him in his own language, for the benefit of his'' understanding. Now I've put a translation below, so you will please refrain from deleting my reply on the pretext of some imaginary rule enforcing strict monolingualism.'''
 * Si digo "Carl Sagan fue un astrónomo americano, pero Carlos Segers no lo fue", lo que perpetro no es un error sino una polisemia. Como testificó Marco Polo, esto no es una diferencia arreglada y puramente lingüística. El desacuerdo en cómo se usa la palabra "América" - la isoglosa, en la jerga de lingüística - no corresponde exáctamente a la frontera entre los idiomas. Incluso en españa, donde los mandamientos se graban, hay muchas personas que dicen "americano" cuando quieren decir "estadounidense", quizás bajo la influencia del francés. El uso está común, aunque abominado por la gente culta, en el Caribe y en México. En la comunidad hispana de EE UU, la palabra "americano" se usa principalmente para significar "estadounidense"; el otro sentido, aquel del continente, es secundario o hasta terciario en la mente. Entre mis amigos hispanos nativos de EE UU (o casi nativos), nadie dice "Soy estadounidense y vivo en EE UU", sino "Soy americano y vivo en América." Se dice sin reparo ni vacilar, probablemente sin conciencia. No es difícil imaginar por qué este anglicismo ha cuajado entre hispanos de EE UU mientras se resiste en otros sitios: la identidad nacional tiene más relevancia y exigencia que la identidad hemisférica. Palabras como "estadounidense" y "norteamericano" son muy desgarbadas, y "gringo" no sirve para referirse a sí mismo. L ANTZY T ALK 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I say, "Carl Sagan fue un astrónomo americano, pero Carlos Segers no lo fue", I am guilty not of an error but of a polysemy. As Marco Polo noted above, this is not a clear-cut and purely linguistic difference. The disagreement about how to use the word "America" - the isogloss, in linguistic jargon - does not correspond precisely to the boundary between the languages. Even in Spain, where the rules are written, there are many who say "americano" and mean "estadounidense", perhaps influenced by French. The use is also common, albeit discouraged by the educated, in the Caribbean and in Mexico. In the Hispanic community in the USA, the word "americano" is used primarily to mean "estadounidense"; the other sense, that of the continent, is secondary or even tertiary in the mind. Among my Hispanic acquaintances who were born here, or who have lived here since infancy, no one says "Soy estadounidense y vivo en EE UU", but rather "Soy americano y vivo en América." They say this without misgivings or hesitation, without any awareness of a controversy. It's not difficult to imagine why this particular anglicism has caught on among Hispanics in the USA even as it is resisted elsewhere: national identity is more relevant and exigent than hemispheric identity. Words like "estadounidense" and "norteamericano" are ungainly, and "gringo" doesn't work as a self-appellation. L ANTZY T ALK 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

who run the world
Why does Rihanna sing "who run the world", and not "runs"? Is it correct? --(please correct my English) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt she is thinking that there is a plurality of separate entities that run the world, and not one single entity. It does sound incorrect, however, and I would have used 'runs' (cf. at a kids' party, "Who wants jelly and ice cream?" - you're not expecting just one kid to say yes). In my opinion, the singular would be better, but I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule about it.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  15:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The full line is "Who run the world? Girls", right? If so then 'run' is fine, but if being taken as question and answer, the question rather pre-empts the answer. To turn it around, you would correctly say "Girls run the world" not "Girls runs the world"; for 'runs' to be right you'd need a single girl, "A girl runs the world". But by asking the question using 'run' they're assuming the answer will be a plural term, which I suppose if you think about it is at least a somewhat less paranoid way of looking at things (i.e., if you're going to accuse anyone of running the world, at least it's not just one person). --jjron (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear it the same way Jjron does. I should also note that we have an article about Run the World (Girls), and it's Beyonce, not Rihanna. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit I'm surprised that anyone would accept "Who run the world?" regardless of the answer. But as I read here, if you go "Who are the people who run the world?" then "are" is correct. Not vouching for the reliability of that site, just linking it if anyone is interested, because that was what resolved my own confusion. IBE (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, English and its varieties are flexible; cf. "it don't matter to me" and "that don't mean a thing" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Not in general. Just American English, which is a tiny part of the English-speaking world. Those examples you cite are very, very rarely used by non-Americans, and only by people pretending to be American (such as singers, etc.).  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  01:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Don't" used the way Seb used it is considered "redneck" English in America. "Does not" or "doesn't" is the right way. "Who run the world?" is also poor English in America. "Who" is both singular and plural: "Who is he/she?" vs. "Who are they?" and when used by itself with a verb is treated as singular. If the singer had said "Who does run the world?" that would be OK, as it gets it back to the singular form. "Who do run the world?" is again poor English. Kind of "street English". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on whether you take a prescriptivist or descriptive stance. Prescriptivists tend to come up with labels like "street English". But alright... that's a different discussion I guess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Americans make up two thirds of all native English speakers, it's hardly accurate to call American English a "tiny part" of the English-speaking world. "Who run the world?" is not standard in American English, even the answer to "who" is already known to be plural, but I think it's the usual formulation in AAVE, which is probably why Beyoncé used it. Angr (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Native" English, maybe, but what about the rest of the Commonwealth, which employs English as one of the official languages of a huge number of countries and therefore people? That's pretty much native, as far as I am concerned. We are talking billions here. The population of English-speaking America could be written on the back of a stamp in comparison.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but our flag is on the moon. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And it took billions to get it there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one thing putting your flag on someplace, it's another actually making it yours, with people there to look after the place. The British Empire did both. This is why British English is widespread across the globe. American English is only gaining a foothold because of ridiculous Hollywood films, and music.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kage, you're just flat wrong. American English is not by any stretch of the imagination a "tiny part" of English.  In any honest "International English", American English must be represented at least comparably to Commonwealth English. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True, I will retract the part where I say 'tiny part', but will hopefully remind people that British English has the majority vote. As you say, American English can be compared to Commonwealth English. I work as a Japanese>English translator, as you all know, and many a time I have to translate into US English. Most of the time, however, it is UK English. There is a reason for that - possibly because of the failing US economy, or just because the UK is more attractive. I don't know. If American English is not a tiny part of the English speaking world, then it will be soon.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disagree &mdash; British English does not have the majority vote. You guys lost your empire and you're trying to console yourselves by fooling yourselves that you still own the language.  But you don't.  Get over it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Trovatore, but I am just speaking merely from professional experience. We got over our empire changing to the Commonwealth pretty easily. I just hope Hollywood can do the same.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that your country has English as an official language doesn't count for much if you don't speak it, or do speak it but don't use it on a regular basis. It's certainly true that a count of first-language speakers, by itself, is not the whole story, but it's more indicative than a count of all people who have just some knowledge of the language, and much more indicative than adding up the whole population of countries like India.  --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's also not correct to say that all Commonwealth nations speak British English. Canada, for example, is closer to US English. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. Their accent is closer (in fact, when I lived in Canada, a lot of people didn't seem to be able to tell I wasn't Canadian, in spite of some mild overlays of Mississippi and Texas in my speech).  They spell aluminum right, mostly.  But they say zed instead of zee, they put all these extra u's all over the place &mdash; it's a mixed bag.  Yanks in Canada will probably think they use British English, whereas Brits will probably think they use American English. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and neither will know what a tuque or a butter tart is. --Trovatore (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

singular or plural? Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is/are?
Christians often express the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one entity. In that case, the verb should be "is", right? Or should it be "are", even though the basic concept is that it treats the three names as one entity. Also, what happens if you have one idea but many concepts lying under that idea? Should everything be pluralized or made singular, as in the following example?

Example: A quadrilateral is a parallelogram, rhombus, a trapezoid, a rectangle, or a square. Reverse the sentence, and you have "A square, a rectangle, a trapezoid, a parallelogram, and a rhombus are quadrilaterals." Make it singular, and you have "A square, a rectangle, a trapezoid, a parallelogram, or a rhombus is a quadrilateral." 164.107.189.4 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You use the verb form "are", as in "The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the three parts of the Trinity," in the same way you would say "The right ventricle, the left ventricle, the right atrium, and the left atrium are the four parts of the heart". The parts of a singular still make up a group.  -- Jayron  32  19:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How about this? The right ventricle, the left ventricle, the right atrium, and the left atrium are found in the heart. Found in the heart is the right ventricle, the left ventricle, the right atrium, and the left atrium. 164.107.189.4 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. You need "are" in your later sentence.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not unrelated to the phrase "there is", usually shortened to "there's". It's very common to hear this precede a plural object, e.g. "There's many different types of food available at this market".  It would have been better in that case to start with "There are".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On a related note, the King's James Bible should go "For thine are the kingdom, the power and the glory" - the translators apparently used "is" as a poetic refinement. I think one sentence (in two parts) that illustrates the whole is/are situation quite well is "God is three Persons/ These three Persons together are the one God." I think that's right, because you just have to favour the first named as taking precedence in choosing the "number" of the verb. It's not subject-verb-object, because "is" is instransitive. And now try this: "Nobody's here yet, are they?" Nobody is a singular subject, so shouldn't it be "Nobody's here yet, isn't he?" So long as he is, then nobody else is, just Nobody. Right? IBE (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your last one isn't quite a great example, because it uses the singular they, a widespread and perfectly acceptable grammatical usage with a long history.  -- Jayron  32  13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be "Nobody's here yet, is he?", not "isn't" he. Been Emotional is quite right, though, to point out the inconsistency of using a a singular verb @ "nobody's" (= "nobody is"), then switching to a plural verb @ "are they", all within the same sentence and referring to the same subject.  Sometimes, the very noble aim of consistency has to be sacrificed on the altar of the nobler aim of clear communication.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese reading help
Regarding the name 陳乙東 (from The Bus Uncle) Is it "Chén yǐdōng" or "Chén zhédōng"? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the the 'Characters' section of that article, it's 'Chan Yuet Tung' in Cantonese, so "Chén yǐdōng" in Mandarin.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, what are the Jyutping readings of 何銳熙 and 陳乙東? Some characters have multiple tones. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, in 北京盛事邦为文化传媒有限公司 (Běijīng Shèngshì Bāng ? Wénhuà Chuánméi Yǒuxiàngōngsī) - Which "Wei" is used? wéi or wèi ? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To the extent that it is intended to be a meaningful name, the reading "wéi" makes sense whereas "wèi" does not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)