Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 December 10

= December 10 =

Are bands plural or nonlpural
What is the generally accepted form of verbs for groups on Wikipedia? For example do people use "Google are" or "Google is", "Nirvana were" or "Nirvana was" etc etc. teratogen (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comparison of American and British English. Basically, if the group is British say are/were e.g. "The Beatles were" but if American say was/is, e.g. "Nirvana was". --Viennese Waltz 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! teratogen (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Americans also would say "The Beatles were...", because Beatles is plural. The difference shows up only when the band name is not obviously plural. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make it a bit clearer, American English agrees with the word not with what it represents. Thus, when discussing a band name with a singular gramatical form, American English will take the plural form if the word is itself plural, but singular form if the word itself is singular. Thus, "The Eagles are a band..." but "Grand Funk Railroad is a band..." In British English, the verb agrees with what is being represented, regardless of whether the word itself is plural or singular. Thus, since a musical group is multiple people, in British English the convention is to always use the plural form regardless of what the name itself is. Thus, "The Smiths are a band..." is correct, but so is "New Order are a band..." The second sounds odd to American ears because of the combination of a singular noun (order) with a plural verb (are); but in British English, since New Order is multiple people, it takes the plural verb (are). -- Jayron  32  19:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not true. in British English the convention is to use singular or plural with singular-named collectives depending on whether the sense is the collective as a unit or as a multiple. So "New Order was formed in 19XX" is more natural than "were formed", but "New order play xxx" (not 'plays'). --ColinFine (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, Bahamas are a Canadian musician? Card Zero  (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because Bahamas is a person, not a collective.  Different grammatical rules. -- Jayron  32  16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Grand Funk Railroad is five people" - correct? Card Zero  (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's right to adopt North American usage for North American bands and British usage for British bands. (Who knows what they do in the Antipodes.) If you speak North American English, use North American grammar for all bands, including British ones. If you speak British English or a version of English with a similar grammar rule, apply that rule to all bands, British or American.  If English is not your first language and you are asking this question, then it is probably time for you to choose one English variant or another and use it consistently.  Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the rule if you are yourself American or British and are writing or speaking to a like-cultured audience. I say "New Order is one of my favorite bands from the 80's" all the time, because I am American and that's how my version of English works.  I would never say "New Order are..." in any context.  If someone is British, I would expect them to use the latter all the time.  That's fine.  The difference is that Wikipedia is written for an international audience who speak various forms of English, and as a result, conventions need to be established which are a) consistent and b) don't favor any one form of English.  Thus the policy of WP:ENGVAR is the compromise we have reached; when speaking of subjects which have a connection to one particular culture, use the standard variety of English used by that culture.  -- Jayron  32  19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, I hear people on the news and radio using "are" for singular groups ALL the time! i.e. "Google are", "Nirvana are" etc. It bugs the heck out of me. teratogen (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't expect us Brits to be consistent with this. I could say either and don't particularly notice what others say. I would notice if proofreading or editing, and would usually change to the singular. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize. Jayron and Viennese Waltz are correct about how to use those verbs on Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It should be noted this is a relevantly recent innovation in Britain. You don't find it in Shakespeare, Dickens, or old movies, and not in Shaw or Wilde as far as I am aware--I may be wrong there, but I haven't noticed it.  Pluralization is a common way to mark politeness and prestige, so its spread may simply be a form of euphemism.  See T/V distinction and royal we.  It would be interesting to see when this trend began.  Perhaps with the BBC? μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I'm finding the American usage being generalised to "names take a singular verb even if they're plural". I occasionally find myself having to revert edits to articles on tribes of Iron Age Britain that change "The Atrebates were a tribe..." to "the Atrebates was a tribe..." --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The assertion that plural verb with grammatically singular noun does not occur in Dickens can be shown to be incorrect with a minute or two of Googling. Rock bands having been in short supply in the 19th Century, I looked for concordance for "the committee were" and "the committee have" as "committee" is a word with some history of being used with a plural verb, particularly where the emphasis is on the individuals within the group. From Martin Chuzzlewit: "The Committee were embellished also [...]" ; from an article in Household Words: "The best and most spirited teacher was a young man [...] whom the Committee were about to send out to Australia ; from a speech made by Dickens in 1856: "twice the committee have considered that it was not unreasonable" . Although Dickens had no cause to write about rock bands, he was happy to use a plural verb when talking about another musical band: "The band were seated opposite us. Five men, with wind instruments, part of the band of the National Guard, to which the farmer's sons belong" . Jayron32's explanation of the rationale behind this usage is sound and I see no reason to complicate the issue with references to politeness and euphemism. Valiantis (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good. "The committee were" as a search term would not have occurred to me.  Is that a lone usage, or are there other examples, such as "the parliament were"?  I am not sure what you mean by "Jayron's reasoning", but if it is that collective nouns take plural verbs because they have members, that is no explanation at all, just a rationalization.  It was not just discovered in the 19th century and only in Britain that committees actually have plural membership.  The singular verb with a noun whose form is singular has been around since PIE days; that's not the result of ignorance that some singular nouns are names for bodies with more than one person.  Some other reason for the adoption and spread of the formation is necessary. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While both the British or American usage are grammatically correct we should remember that the British use, if applied strictly, conveys more information, particularly as band names are traditionally a sort of non representative verbal shortcut, like the name of a pub. Take the currently popular Passenger (singer), for example, which is the name that a singer called Mike Rosenberg puts on his recordings.  He used to be in Passenger (band), but kept the name after the band broke up in 2009, so the pre-2009 'Passenger are...' and post 2009 'Passenger is...' tells us something about the artist. Similarly I first saw Villagers (band) on Later when the 'band' consisted of just Conor O'Brien and his guitar.  The British have been used to doing this for years in regard to pub names: "The Hat and Feathers is a pub". I'd be interested to know whether Americans ever say something like "Cheers are a bar"? Blakk   and ekka 16:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Cheers!" is a conventionalized toast (like "Bottoms up!" or whatever) and is not an ordinary plural noun (it's an interjection, not a real noun at all in its main usage). The actual noun "cheer" is abstract and not easily pluralizable, in the meaning corresponding to the drinking toast... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In what variety of English is "Google are" used? I could see "Bing and Google are search engines" but not "Google are a search engine". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't get "Google are a serach engine", but you might get "Google are a company best known for their search engine". --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we see writers with feet in both camps. Apple are playing catch-up, says Microsoft: Microsoft has brushed off Apple's move to give away its software, claiming the iWork productivity suite from its rival was "lightweight" …. And here, the writer starts out treating Google as singular (is, it, its), but before the end of the opening paragraph it's become plural (are, they). Then the final sentence of the 2nd para switches briefly back to singular before reverting to plural (... has been able to limit their success ...).   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting because both "Google are a company best known for their search engine" and "Google is a company best known for their search engine" sound fine to me and I really don't see any problem with Jacks first example. This suggests that sooner or later someone is going to be annoyed with me for using the wrong phrasing in an article. It's probably due to the strange variety of English that I've listened to over the past 40 years. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I heard someone say "Google are a company that.." or "Grand Funk are a band that.." I might reply "It ARE?" because the sentence sounds like it has a singular subject. Edison (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * CBW, I don't think anyone would support mixing and matching different varieties in the same context. My first example is equivalent to "Microsoft is a company, but Apple are a company".  Is that weird, or are that weird?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with French phrase

 * There is a French language book review used in De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes.

It states:
 * "FU Daiwie prend comme le titre de son texte Imposition of Taxonomy. Effectivement les traducteurs européens notamment Joseph Needham obéissent à leur conception taxonomique dans le choix des fragment sà rendre et la manière de la faire. Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original. L’auteur, pris Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude, effectue une analyse critique à partir de leurs interprétations de la découverte de la déclinaison magnétique en Chine."

Google Translate:
 * "FU Daiwie takes as the title of his text Imposition of Taxonomy. Indeed the European translators such as Joseph Needham obey their taxonomic design in the choice of fragments to make and how to do it. This inevitably leads to a deformation of the original face. The author, Dream Pool Essays taken as a case study, carried out a review based on their interpretations of the discovery of the magnetic declination in China analysis."

So is the author is saying that by translating something selectively, the meaning of the text is degraded, and that one has to translate the whole text in order for it to be true to the original? And that Mengxi Bitan is used as the author's case study?

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First, there's a small error in the French text. It should be des fragments à rendre.


 * I would translate the text as: FU Daiwie takes as the title of his text "Imposition of Taxonomy". Effectively, the European translators, such as Joseph Needham, follow their taxonomic conception in their choice of fragments to render and their manner of doing it.  That which results inevitably leads to a deformation in regard to the original. Mengxi Bitan taken as a case study, the author carries out a critical analysis based on their interpretations of the discovery of magnetic declination in China. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not translate effectivement as "effectively"; that's a slight false friend, I think. GT's "indeed" is probably closer. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem using indeed, but one of the meanings of effectively is "in effect" which means the same thing as "in fact" or "in deed". The emphasis is different, and I'll bow to your judgment on the connotation of the term. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm making a bit of an assumption as well, which is that it's the same as Italian. Effettivamente or in effetti means "in fact", but not so much "in effect".  In English, I hear "in effect" as meaning something like "restricting ourselves to the practical consequences and ignoring fine distinctions", which connotation is not really there in the Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The "des fragments" thing turned out to be a typo on my end (I reviewed the text to make sure) - Medeis, your translation is used here: De_l'un_au_multiple:_Traductions_du_chinois_vers_les_langues_européenes WhisperToMe (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Do see Trovatore's suggestion above. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I quoted only a portion of the quote, which does not include "effectivement/indeed" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The second sentence would be better: "This inevitably leads to deformation compared to the original." And "effectivement" is indeed indeed. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original is not a complete sentence. Is there a verb missing?  I assumed there was. IMJ's translation is removing something while mine adds something. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the source text and it does say: "Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original." WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the punctuation right as well? Ce qui means that which, so we literally get an incomplete phrase: "That which follows inevitably a deformation in regard to the original."  I assumed there was an omitted "is" after follows. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a natural construction in somewhat informal French. Technically, it's a sentence fragment.  I think it should not be translated "That which ..." but "Which ...", as in "Which inevitably entails a deformation relative to the original." In informal English that kind of dependent clause often occurs even though it violates prescriptive grammar.  Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but "which" is no different from "that which", in that it introduces a dependent clause, and a verb is still missing, or perhaps the punctuation is wrong. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ce qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original is a complete sentence. About "ce qui", you can refer to this page — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, that page only shows ce qui being used to introduce dependent clauses, and that is the prescriptively "correct" usage. However, as I've been trying to say, it is common in French to begin a sentence with this pronoun, even though it is not really "correct". Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Marco's right. It's technically a sentence fragment, but one that is tolerated even in quite formal French. A literal translation wouldn't sound good in English, so you can translate it the way I said unless Aldo has a better solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but according to Le Bon Usage (mine is 12th ed., 1988) §674: "Ce devant une proposition relative commençant par qui, que, quoi prépositionel, dont. [...] b) Ce comme représentant une phrase [my emphasis] ou une partie de phrase et constituant avec une relative un élément incident : [...] Le lien avec l'antécédent se relâche facilement, et les auteurs mettent alors une ponctuation forte devant le démonstratif. Ponctuation forte is meant to be a full stop, a semi colon... The translation by Itsmejudith is fine for me, but I am not an English native speaker.— AldoSyrt (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first page you linked to above, AldoSyrt, gives only examples of relative usage, and each sentence with ce qui has two finite verbs. You've cited another source, which also says the usage is relative, but you give no examples.  It is quite easy to interpret Ce qui entraîne est inévitablement une déformation face à l’original as a full gramatical sentence, but until I see an example parallel to ee qui entraîne inévitablement une déformation face à l’original without a main verb I am going to have to disagree. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with a native speaker closely referring to Le Bon Usage. You're out of your depth, Medeis. Ce qu'il fallait démontrer. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Example given by Le Bon Usage, §674. "Il pouvait apercevoir l'Anglaise sans bouger, rien qu'en déplaçant les pupilles sous ses paupières baissées. Ce qu'il fit." Roger Martin du Gard (Nobel prize of literature) in The Thibaults. An other example by Marcel Proust in Á l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs: "Pour lui en toute circonstance il faisait ce qui lui paraissait le plus agréable, le plus commode, mais aussitôt c'était imité par les snobs. Ce qui n'empêche pas qu'il était délicieux avec elle, qu'elle l'adorait, et qu'il l'a pleurée pendant des années." The notion of "full grammatical sentence" is not clear, and there are, in French at least, numerous definitions of sentence. To quote again Le bon Usage: "Mais le plus souvent la communication se fait par une suite de phrases, qui sont en relation les unes avec les autres." (Note, to draw a bit a parallel, that this sentence begin with mais, that is considered as a mistake by des esprits logiciens as they are called by Grevisse -- it is not a compliment.) To go back to the notion of "full grammatical sentence", let analyze it. "Ce qui" subject, "entraîne" verb, ["...] une déformation [...]" direct object: S + V + DO. The syntax is correct. Yes I know, grammar is not only syntax... — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples! (You'll note Judith, I didn't say Aldo was wrong, period.  Just that I wanted examples.) μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Et te voilà servie, ma vieille. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence L’auteur, pris Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude, effectue une analyse critique ... sounds weird. Is there a typo? I should say something like L’auteur pris Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude et effectua une analyse critique ... — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was thinking it should be "l'auteur, pris par..." Adam Bishop (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it is said L’auteur, pris par Mengxi Bitan comme un cas d’étude..., it means that "the author" is taken as a case study by Mengxi Bitan. So, the English translation should be changed, if it is established... — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, either the par is missing and the meaning differs from my translation, or the pris is in an odd order. I took auter to refere to FU Daiwie, who wrote the text.  Hence my interpretation. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if there were supposed to be two verbs in the passé simple, "pris" would have to be "prit". I would say that changing both "pris" and "effectue" is the lectio difficilior, so it's more likely that "par" is missing after "pris" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The French native speaker made a mistake! You are right: "l'auteur prit", with a "t". I think you gave the clue (Occam razor). Nonetheless, there are several problems with the text. "prend comme le titre de son texte"; "pris comme un cas d'étude"; "et la manière de la faire", I cannot see what la refers to; "leurs interprétations", I do not understand the usage of "leurs" here. Are Mengxi Bitan different persons? —AldoSyrt (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed leurs refered to  les traducteurs européens. I am not sure pris should be prit.  It then clashes in tense with effectue.  I assumed it was a strangely placed past participle, "taken", meant to be an absolute: "Mengxi Bitan taken as a case study". μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not read all the comments, so this might have been mentioned already. There should be a double n in européennes to agree with langues in the feminine plural.  Please see européennes.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with Chinese: Daiwie Fu's resume
I want to see if 傅大為 is the Chinese characters for "Daiwie Fu" [sic] who wrote "On Mengxi bitan's World of Marginalities and 'South-pointing Needles': Fragment Translation vs. Contextual Tradition" for De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes. There is a resume of a Daiwie Fu here sts.ym.edu.tw/index.php?act=member&pid=0&cid=0&id=7 http://archive.is/WLyYw

The work isn't listed there (the essay is from 1999). How do I get past versions of Daiwie Fu's resume to try to source that the Daiwie Fu who wrote the article has the Chinese name 傅大為? (and therefore has the Wikipedia article zh:傅大為). I'm trying to find pages that mention him at http://web.archive.org/web/20000301125640/http://www.ym.edu.tw/ym2.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/20050306052457/http://www.ym.edu.tw/ but I have had trouble finding them. Wouldn't he have a profile and be working at the same university? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The essay itself http://books.openedition.org/editionsmsh/1494 states that he was "Daiwie Fu National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan." so I wonder if past versions of that website will answer my question. I wonder if I can find him in here http://web.archive.org/web/20000620171538/http://www.nthu.edu.tw/NTHU/departs.html WhisperToMe (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

His English resume http://sts-eng.ym.edu.tw/T-DWFU.html - http://archive.is/rIULS seems to indicate it's him ("18. 1999, “On Mengxi Bitan’s [夢溪筆談] World of Marginalities and ‘South-Pointing Needles’: Fragment Translation vs. Contextual Translation” De l’Un au Multiple. De la traduction du Chinois dans les langues Europeennes, edited by Viviane Alleton and Michael Lackner, pp.175-201, Editions de la Maison de Sciences de l’Homme. 此文減縮1/3的一版本，刊於 Current Perspectives in the History of Science in East Asia, ed., by Yung Sik Kim and Francesca Bray, Seoul National University Press, 1999, pp.52-66." and "National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, TAIWAN 2007-"), but I would like to check earlier resumes on the National Tsing Hua website (the resume says his title was "Professor, History, Division of History of Science, and Division of STS. National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan, 1993-2009.") WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On http://web.archive.org/web/20010408213007/http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw/~hist/teacher.html (Archive) is http://web.archive.org/web/20010424173647/http://rpgs1.isa.nthu.edu.tw/faculty/dwfu/ (Archive) which leads to the proof it's him. http://web.archive.org/web/20010728102324/http://rpgs1.isa.nthu.edu.tw/faculty/dwfu/pub-a.html - http://archive.is/CJdyq

I guess I answered my own question ✅ WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)