Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 October 31

= October 31 =

French translation
Is Page 319-320, a list of donation "to equip the French Army and contribute to an airplane"? And did the people who donated 0,50, donated half a franc?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Page 319
 * Page 320


 * "Patriotic donations from the French of Tahiti to equip the French Army with an airplane and contribute to the establishment of the fifth branch." "Fifth branch" refers to the predecessor of the French Air Force. Note that aéroplane is now obsolete; the modern French word is avion. And yes, it seems that 0,50 means half a franc, which today would be worth about €1.62 or $2.10. Lesgles (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How did you get that value for 0,50 francs, lesgles? Remember the Franc was divided by 100 in the 60s. And is it half a Polynesian Franc or half a French franc? --Lgriot (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Scrap that, the CFP franc was only creted in 45. --Lgriot (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He used the linked table, which says that a French Franc in 1912 is equivalent to €3.24267 in 2011, according to L'Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques. Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To give a small idea of the cost of a French airplane in 1912, according to this source: 15 000 francs for a motor. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mon Dieu! On the other side of the Atlantic in 1912, you could by a Brooks Biplane (apparently a Curtiss clone), "Popular Priced Machine - Fully Equipped $1,500.00" (about FF 7,500 using the ROE quoted here). Alansplodge (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese help
At File:OstasiatischeLloyd28July1911.png - Which characters state the Chinese name of the paper? Three at the top are "新文德" but I'm not sure about the others

Also what are the Chinese names in the footnotes of p. 89 and p. 90 and p. 93?

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The one on p. 90 is 事務日報, right? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The first one on that page looks like 時 to me. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a second look - 時務日報 seems to be more plausible WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Transcriptions with my commentary:　p.89: i. 申報(Shen-pao), ii. 點石齋畫報 (an illustrated supplement to the Shen-pao). iii. 郭實拉 or 獵 ("Guo Shila" or "Guo Shilie" - in Shanghainese these would be more like "Gozuh-la / Gozuhleh", closer to the original); iv. 東西洋考每月統記傳（Eastern Western Monthly Magazine); 2. 黃時鑑; v. 張燮; vi.東西洋考 (Eastern Western Monthly Magazine); vii. 察世俗每月統記傳 (Chinese Monthly Magazine, an early 19th century Chinese-language magazine published in Malaysia, see zh:察世俗每月統記傳). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * p.93: xiii: 米松林; xiv: 研究與進步; xv: 傅吾康; xvi: 上海猶太刊物 (Shanghai Jewish Chronicle). Note: the last Chinese name seems suspicious to me. It sounds more like the generic description "Jewish publication in Shanghai" rather than the name of a publication. The original publication (based on a Google search) does not bear a Chinese title, so someone at some point may have taken the description (e.g. "Shanghai Jewish Chronicle, a Jewish publication in Shanghai") from a Chinese language source and taken it as the Chinese name. The error could easily have been perpetuated by sources referring to each other. I would suggest verification from a more direct source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chinese sources seem to call the paper "上海猶太紀事報" - which sounds more right: see e.g. this study on the paper. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also like the Chinese from p. 91. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's 徳文新報. 徳文 means German language. 新報 is new+report and often used as a name of a newspaper. Oda Mari (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting.. so back then one could display the characters backwards? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was standard to write right-to-left when writing horizontally, (and top-down, right-to-left in normal print) across the Chinese world up until around the 1950s in mainland China, and much later elsewhere. In Hong Kong, most books and magazines are still printed this way.
 * So if you see a horizontal tablet hung in or in front of a temple or palace or other traditional building, it will almost always be read right-to-left, a tablet written left-to-right in traditional contexts may well be ridiculed for being illiterate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts has more information. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It was based on the fact that traditionally Chinese was written in columns, top-down then right-to-left. So if characters had to be written to fit in a horizontal space, then you effectively had a sequence of one-character-high "columns", and the natural order would be right-to left. Here's a moderately famous flag with two characters on it read right-to-left. AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The text on the newspaper on page 91 is 青島新報, "Qingdao New Report". The text in the footnote is "泰東古今鑑". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! It's really interesting! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese character - 厯 + 氵 radical
I'm trying to help a person locate a Chinese character that is 厯 plus the 氵 radical. It appears in a 19th-century gazetteer mentioning a bridge's name in Qingpu. None of the online dictionaries seem to have it. I was only able to find the 厯 portion of the character because I drew it using the Nciku dictionary. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Only CHF members will enjoy the privilege of reading this forum. You would need to sign up as a member and login to the forum to read this forum!" - do you mind reposting the image (or whatever it was)?
 * Could it have been the similar-looking 瀝? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A dictionary I checked tells me 厯 is a variant of 歴, which would be consistent with 氵厯 being a variant of 瀝. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Have not been able to find the character in computerised text - the online dictionaries that record it as a variant of 瀝 all use pictures. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the image that they posted. If your dictionary says one is a variation of the other, its plausible that the variation with the water radical is it. Thanks for the help. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking for variants of 瀝 directly finds some sources that list 氵厯 as a variant: see e.g. http://www.hanwenxue.com/zidian/yitizi/11224a32201149732.html . --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple questions with "if"
I know about indirect If-questions but are there simple questions introduced with "if"? Like "If he knew this?"="Did he know this?"--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, questions don't normally start with "If" in that manner. -- Jayron  32  05:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it cannot be an ellipsis? "If he knew this?"="(I wonder, Can you tell me, etc.) If he knew this?" Sounds quite natural and understandable for me. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some languages have a yes-no-question particle (the only one I can recall at the moment is Esperanto "ĉu", though they occur in natural languages also). English doesn't -- and I think that such particles are more often the same as the word for "whether" in the languages which they occur, rather than the same as the word for "if"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In Russian this would be «Знал ли он это?». Если "if, whether" came from есть ли "if it is", so если and ли mean very close concepts (originally ли meant "if" but later it became a particle). In Belorussian/Ukrainian this would be Ці знаў ён гэта?/Чи знав він це? - both from Old East Slavic чи/ци "if, or", which is also remained in many Russian dialects. Maybe this is why it sounds so natural for me.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My relatives will also make Ці yes/no questions in our Ruthenian dialect. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See wikt:Category:Interrogative particles by language.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Esperanto ĉu is taken from a Polish word (czy or cy), I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's czy in Polish. — Kpalion(talk) 22:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Questions can start with 'if' ("If you never slept with her, then how come her baby has your DNA?"), but what I assume Luboslov means by "simple questions" (i.e. ones not containing a conditional clause) do not.
 * That said, it's always possible to contrive a context for any given set of words, and "If he knew this?" could appear in a dialogue, but it would be understood to mean something like "And how would things be different if he knew this?". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Oh, that's easy to explain. We didn't sleep." --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Spoken Spanish frequently adds initial if to yes/no questions.
 * ¿Si has visto mi carro?         "Have you seen my car?"
 * ¿Si tú quieres comida china?    "Do you want Chinese food?"
 * ¿Si vamos, o no?                "Are we going, or not?"
 * I have never come acrost it in formal writing (where such questions are rare, anyways) or read a description of it in a grammar book. It's curious whether there are any sources; I'll look.  I have even noticed it slipping into my own speech on odd occassions.  The other night I asked "If you want to eat Chinese?" and no remark was made to the strangeness of what I had said--although it was obvious to me once I'd said it."  I'd advise Lyuboslov never to use it in English since it will be seen as ungrammatical in writing and be taken as a foreignism in speech. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No luck searching for sources since the search term words are too common. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In Irish, the interrogative particle an is used in both direct and indirect questions, and in German, ob 'whether, if' is used in indirect questions, but also often in questions you're asking yourself (Ob ich heute eine Jacke anziehe? "Should I wear a jacket today?") and when you repeat a question you've already asked once and the person didn't hear you the first time (Bist du fertig? —Bitte? —Ob du fertig bist? "Are you ready? —What? —[I asked] if you're ready."). Angr (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"mark for"
"It has also been suggested that school bullying may be a permanent mark for psychopathy." (my italics) This is copied from the psychopathy article and I don't understand the meaning of this "mark for". The dictionary says a sign, a trace, but that doesn't really make sense. So, what does this "mark for" mean in this context? Lova Falk    talk   18:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symptom of – or rather, a feature strongly correlated with the other. —Tamfang (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * However, the text is not about somebody who has bullied but somebody who was the victim of bullying. The text continues: "Eric Harris, one of the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, had been an occasional victim of bullying and decided to shoot up his school. Consequently, he was posthumously diagnosed as a textbook and clinical psychopath." So, is there another meaning of mark for, or should the first sentence be copyedited?   Lova Falk     talk   18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, being bullied may also lead to violence, but I don't think that's what the first sentence means. As such, perhaps it should be removed, yes.  StuRat (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Mark for" = "Indicator of". StuRat (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But once more, the text is not about somebody who bullies, but a victim of bullying. So "bullying may be a permanent indicator of psychopathy" isn't correct in this context.  Lova Falk     talk   18:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have understood that in this context the sentence is wrong, and I have removed it. Thank you for your help!  Lova Falk     talk   19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this relates in some way to the potential or actual victim of a con being referred to as a "mark". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "victim" usage comes from "mark" meaning "target", as also in "marksman". See here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The best ever question
You can already see where I'm going with this. Once, that would have been "The best question ever". I'm always reading nowadays about "the first ever" this and "the highest ever" that and so on. It's all changing but I don't know why it's changing, because it wasn't broke to begin with.

From 1869 college football season: I'm sorely tempted to edit it to:
 * The first ever college football national championship awarded (retroactively) was split ….
 * The first college football national championship ever awarded (retroactively) was split ….

Have grammar texts caught up with this new-speak? Do they support it, or do they at least require the ever to be attached via a hyphen ("The first-ever championship awarded ...")?

I note that we still say "Best ref desk joke ever", and not "Best ever ref desk joke". Is there a subtle difference that's escaping me? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * More to the point, what benefit does ever bring to the sentence, wherever it's placed? Why is 'the first championship ever' better than 'the first championship'? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In some cases and contexts, 'ever' is required in order to make clear the thing is not just the first one this year or this season or whatever, but the first one, well, ever. That's ok.
 * But things like "Obama's first ever news conference after being elected was ..." are just beyond a joke.   So, there are two aspects to this issue:
 * (a) whether "ever" should appear in a certain construction at all; and if so,
 * (b) exactly where. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Placement of adverbs in English is partially in free variation, as is the case with your examples. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The thing is, many writers/speakers are effectively treating "best ever", "first ever" etc as compound adjectives, not as adjective-adverb combinations, hence my query about hyphenisation.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd get away from looking at it as a grammatical question, and look at it as a meme. In a normal voice either order is fine.  But the "Best ref desk joke ever" order is part of the "Best...X...Ever!" meme in at least American English (can't imagine hearing Catherine Tate say it) where there is an exaggerated emphasis placed on all three words and it is said as if it is a complete utterance, no verb needed. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets used a lot in colloquial English, and it sounds like over-emphasis... or "over-exaggeration", as some folks say. Note "colloquial" and not "encyclopedic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the adverbs in English link above, I think it is clear that "ever" at the end of the phrase is being used as an adverb of place (here time) analogously to anywhere. That explains the trend to phrase-final word order. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You do need it in some contexts..."Fido is the world's biggest dog." could be the biggest dog currently alive or the biggest dog that ever lived...so in that case, adding "ever" someplace in the sentence does add some meaning. SteveBaker (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, as I acknowledged above. That would be "Fido is the biggest dog in history", or "Fido is the biggest dog ever", but the trouble is, many people these days would say "Fido is the biggest ever dog", which bothers me tremendously.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will assume it bothers you because you are treating it as an adverb of place, as mentioned above, which usually goes at the end of a phrase. But it is an adverb, so it can follow either the verb or the adjective.  Even "Fido is ever the biggest dog" would work, although you'd rarely hear it.  English and a lot of languages like to have a set conventional order for their modifiers.  "The biggest old black dog ever", not "the ever black old biggest dog."  That's a matter of habit and convention.  Is it possible, Jack, that you are conventional?. :) μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there ain't nuffink rong wif dat. That's not to say that I reject all change.  Far from it.  But when change occurs for no comprehensible rational reason other than ignorance, and those who know better not only don't correct them but too easily adopt the "New Ignorance" as the way we speak and write now, that's when I say "Whoa, I don't accept that".   If we took a similar line of least resistance with medical training or computer science - or, indeed, encyclopedia writing - we'd be in a fine pickle.  That's if the human race still existed.  I know this is language we're talking about here, and it's not set in stone and it changes every day of the week.  But when news outlets start telling me that someone was the "oldest ever person", I really wonder what's going on.  A very few years ago, I'd have been confident in saying that such an expression was completely unnatural, nobody talks or writes like that (we say "the oldest person ever"), and the sub-editor should be retrained or sacked. (And then sacked again for the inconsistency of writing "oldest ever person" in the headline but "oldest human being ever" in the text.) Something's happened in a very short space of time to make it OK, apparently.  What was that something, and why did it happen?
 * As I said at the start, I'm interested in knowing if any grammar books have yet given this formulation their tick of approval. If so, so be it.  If not, I'd feel secure in still regarding it as a sub-standard abuse of language, and I would proceed to carry out my threat to edit 1869 college football season et many al.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one of my bugaboos (things calling for Instant Edits because Something Is Wrong On The Internet.) Yesterday, I ran into something like "1947 was the 98th ever season of the South Sydney Wombats". Yikes. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't find it now, but I ran across something the other day that went like: "It was not just the first ever X but the only ever X". And see Trumwine of Abercorn et al for a use of "only ever".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)