Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 January 24

= January 24 =

Kishmish
What is the relationship between Kishmish and raisins (which it redirects to)? Shadyaubergine (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - it seems to be any assortment of dried fruits, which may or may not include raisins. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Literally, "Kishmish" (کشمش) is Persian for "raisins". Kishmish is a family of seedless grape cultivars of Central Asian origin. It includes the "oval kishmish" or "white kishmish" (better known as Thomson Seedless) and "black kishmish" (Black Monukka). The word is also used to mean raisins made from these grapes. --Itinerant1 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much. Shadyaubergine (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sentence language subject to two meanings?
Hello all. I'm curious about a language construction from an article I'm writing where one person has interpreted a sentence in an unintended way. Please read and interpret this sentence for yourself before going on to the next part:"Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States, even having Judy Garland proclaim him her favorite vaudevillian." The language at issue is the part about Judy Garland and the word "having". The intent is to simply describe that Judy Garland had proclaimed him her favorite. The interpretation of the other person is that having here means inducement, that Ali had her state that he was her favorite. I'm trying to figure out whether the unintended meaning is a natural construction, or just this one person's idiosyncratic and outre interpretation. Which way did you read it? Is the unintended meaning a natural interpretation? Is it ambiguous?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to "... United States. Judy Garland proclaimed him her favorite vaudevillian."  No crime in having this be two sentences, and it avoids the awkward construction.  -- Jayron  32  13:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could do that though there's a second use in the body that works well which has been (mis?)intepreted in the same way and I really don't want to change it. I want to know if there's validity to the other interpretation or if it's just one person's quirky reading.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly valid interpretation, although I'd say the preceding information in the sentence would steer one away from it. But (and it's an important but), there's some odd tense shifting going on with the Judy phrase, which I'd say makes the ambiguity more pronounced. In any event there is certainly nothing "outré" about the alternate interpretation, and we should be striving for clarity for all.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  13:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Change "even having" to "with" - eliminates all possible misinterpretation  I hope. Collect (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States, with even Judy Garland proclaiming him her favorite vaudevillian." is certainly better and clearer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "even Judy Garland" in that construction; the sense seems to require "with Judy Garland even proclaiming". As an alternative, how about the good old absolute construction, "Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States—Judy Garland having even proclaimed him her favorite vaudevillian," or using Jayron's suggestion but making the Garland sentence parenthetical: "Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States (Judy Garland even proclaimed him her favorite vaudevillian)." Deor (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. At this point I can't say I love the way it reads (though the version in the body of the article reads better to me), and I am going to change both keeping in mind your various suggestions, but no matter how many times I read it, straining to hear the other meaning coming through, it doesn't for me. I understand what the person is saying, but I can't imagine many people naturally hearing the other.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't interpret it in the 2nd way either, but the "having" doesn't seem to fit in that sentence, which might lead one to wonder if it was forced in there in order to make a pun. And, once you look for it, you might well find the 2nd meaning. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In most cases the word "even" could probably be removed (eg "Judy Garland even proclaimed him ...") to create a shorter and more neutral sentence, without any change to the (un)ambiguity. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Japanese help
I want somebody to make a Japanese version of File:Japan Airlines 123 - sitting plan-2.svg - But before the graphics lab can work on it, I need the Japanese for the following: Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "seat locations of survivors"
 * "section A" "section B" etc.
 * "row 60" and "row 54"
 * "seat locations of survivors" 生存者の座席(位置) 位置 is location, but I think it can be omitted. The ja article doesn't use it.
 * "section A" "section B" セクション A, セクション B
 * "row 60" and "row 54" 60列, 54列 Oda Mari (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! As a result of your findings, I have submitted a request to make a Japanese version at the Commons graphics lab: Commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

life vs lives
I would use a gun to protect the life of my wife and of my son. OR I would use a gun to protect the lives of my wife and of my son.

Also, what about this: I would use a gun to protect the life/lives of my wife and of my children. Widener (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lives", in both cases. Your wife and each of your children has his or her own life, so the plural is called for here. (This isn't true in all languages, though: German, for example, would use the singular here.) Angr (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The second example, however, is badly formulated - "...to protect the lives of my wife and of my children" reads wrongly. The use of "and of my children" suggests a sub-clause, meaning you are effectively saying "...to protect the lives of my wife, and to protect the lives of my children". It would work better, and use fewer words, by saying "...to protect the lives of my wife and children". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think both are acceptable, though the second of my is awkward in both cases. ...[T]o protect the life of my wife and son seems unobjectionable to me. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, "life" is used with a slightly different meaning there. One could also say (if you insist on a singular "life"): ...[T]o protect the life of my wife, and that of my son.    D b f i r s   09:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)