Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 March 28

= March 28 =

Khilafat & Khilafat-o-Ijazat
Could use some help here please, on Ata Hussain Fani Chishti there are a few non-english terms that have been tagged as needing translation, Khilafat & Khilafat-o-Ijazat, and I can't seem to find a meaning. Judging by the context they are both something which is awarded, presumably for spiritual work. Thanks-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Khilafat is from the Arabic word خلافة which in a general or religious context most often means "Caliphate" (though there are some other technical meanings). AnonMoos (talk)
 * So in the sentence "After the death of his grandfather, he was nurtured by his maternal uncle Ala Hazrat Meer Qamruddin Husain Monami, who completed his worldly studies as well as spiritual teachings and awarded him Khilafat-o-Ijazat upon completion." it refer to a title that the subject would be given?-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Businesses entities
Is the term "businesses entities" correct (with both business and entity in plural)? I saw this usage in Accounts receivable and found it odd. "... businesses entities can offer a discount for early payment.". Or is it a typo? Made a search in Google and it showed quite a lot of results. 148.87.19.202 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks wrong to me - I would assume that "business entities" is meant, a business entity being a generic description of various types of company, partnership, sole trader, etc - see Types of business entity. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand on my answer, "business" is being used an adjective here, so doesn't change for the plural form. It's similar to expressions such as business process. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct plural of "business entity" is "business entities". Business, in this case, is a modifier of entity (it is a descriptor which answers the question "what kind of entity".  As an aside, the phrase "business entity" is a bullshit obfuscation which has become prevalent in the English language since the middle of the 20th century.  The word is "business".  Entity is a meaningless addition.  Business is a perfectly good word by itself, and "entity" adds no meaning.  Similar phrases like "emergency situation" and "workplace environment" and things like that are (IMHO) a troublesome development; they are phrases invented by and used by people who mistakenly believe that longer phrases make one appear more intelligent.  They don't.  If you are copy editing a document which contains the phrase "businesses entities" you can make it better by just writing the word "businesses".  Strictly speaking, the correct plural is "business entities", but why be so inefficient with the language.  No need to use two words when one does the same job. This video explains it nicely.  -- Jayron  32  16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that User:AndrewWTaylor edited the phrase in the article to "business entities". And as Andrew mentioned, business entity is part of article names as well. I also see category by name "Types of business entity". So any kind of terminology correction will have to be consistent. I went through the video. 148.87.19.202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.9.100 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding Jayron32's objections, "business entity" is a useful term and does not mean exactly the same as "business." "Business entities" include for-profit corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, business trusts, and other entities created for for-profit purposes, while excluding sole proprietorships.  In addition, some business entities are not really stand-alone businesses.  So there should not be any grand effort to change "business entities" to "businesses" wherever it appears; typically, one term or the other will be preferable.  The linked article is such a case; it clearly is intended to refer to "businesses," including sole proprietorships.  John M Baker (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

French help: Control by rebel movements
Hi! To say "current control" (as of the area currently controlled by rebel movements) would I say "contrôle actuel"? For former control, would it be "contrôle ancien"?

I am trying to get terms for a French translation of File:Azawad_Tuareg_rebellion_2012.svg

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "contrôle actuel" works, but the other one would be "ancien contrôle". "Contrôle ancien" would refer to ancient control.  Omg †  osh 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you very much for your help! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that that's not actually the main or core meaning of "contrôle" in French; http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/contr%C3%B4le lists it last, with the label "Par extension"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To translate the caption of the map, I would say Actuellement sous contrôle for "Current control", and Précédemment sous contrôle for "Former control". — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kanji differentiation
Hi, in Japanese I suppose 滿 is simply a variant of 満 ? I know the latter character, but not the former, and I'm wondering why the former would be used -- whether it has a different nuance, or is old-fashioned, or something like that. I just came across it in a text. Thanks, 86.160.85.74 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 満 is a Japanese simplification of the traditional Chinese 滿. I'm not sure how long it has existed. -- BenRG (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As BenRG said, 滿 is a traditional kanji and 満 is a simplified kanji. See Shinjitai and Japanese script reform. Kyujitai was the standard until the reforms after the Second World War. This page uses Kyūjitai. See the sentences under the flag. Some people like Saiichi Maruya prefer to use kyujitai. People with kyujitai in their surname like Toshiko Akiyoshi still use it. See also ja:wikt:満 Oda Mari (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you read 滿, rather than 満, in an ordinary, run-of-the-mill modern text (not in a personal name, not in any special stylised writing), how does it seem to you? Does it seem odd, like a mistake, or quaint, or do you just read through it without really bothering about it? 86.183.3.169 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's on the internet or some other kind of non-professionally published text, it may simply be erroneously inputting a modern Chinese form instead of the modern Japanese form of the same character. I know that at least the reverse (i.e. inputting the modern Japanese form in a Chinese text) is quite commonplace on the Chinese wikipedia, for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on the context or the word. If the word is an ordinary word like 満足/satisfaction, probably I would think it a little bit odd and suspect it might be a typo. But if the word is a proper noun like 滿州/Manchuria or something related to Taiwan, I think I'd just read through it. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. thanks everyone. 86.171.174.159 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It might also be due to exposure to pre-standard texts. There are all sorts of graphic variants with Chinese characters, and when countries created fixed national typographic standards in the 20th century, they often picked slightly different variants. But in handwriting people continued to use other variants for quite some time, so that you might find "Japanese" variants in China and "Chinese" variants in Japan, though I suspect that outside of calligraphy that has largely died out by now. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)