Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 February 24

= February 24 =

The bell was sounded for lights out.
I can't be sure about the following sentence: "The school bell was sounded for lights out." Is it idiomatic? I need your advice. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.175.133 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would make sense for a strict boarding school or military school. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Or in the context of the London Blitz... 24.5.122.13 (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be interpreted as making sense, but I wouldn't say it is idiomatic (unless you're only talking about the 'lights out' part).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The only bit that jangles for me is the word "school". I find the bell was sounded for lights out perfectly idiomatic. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

so saying & with that
In "So saying, he left in a hurry.", can "so saying" be replaced by "with that"? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.175.133 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It would depend on the context in which it was said whether or not it made sense but as far as grammar is concerned, yes, it's grammatically correct either way. Dismas |(talk) 04:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "With that" is appropriate only if the preceding clause quotes (or describes) a specific utterance. It does not work here, for example: "Smith thought the idea absurd. With that ..." — because there's no clear sign that Smith expressed the thought; "So saying" takes care of that problem. —Tamfang (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

She met some classmates of ten years earlier.
"She met some classmates of ten years earlier." This is a sentence I have written, meaning she met some classmates with whom she had studied in the same class ten years before. But I wonder if it is correct. I would like to get your advice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.175.133 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is correct, though "of" may be considered stilted; "from" would be more usual in colloquial language. —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a machine japanese translator?
Is there a web site where I can upload a jpg or bitmap image of some japanese printed text, and get back an English translation? Or a match to JIS standard characters? 121.215.94.143 (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there is. One way to do it is to upload it here. The inherent difficulty in automating what you require is why Captcha works so well. Machines (and software) are just not that good at it. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How do I upload a jpeg or bitmap image here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.34.152 (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Try www.newocr.com - this is a free online optical character recognition website, which apparently works with Japanese.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  09:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  I've just tried it.  Useless. I gave it a sample paragraph of Japanese characters taken from the owner's manual for an electronic device.  I know that this paragrph describes the features shown in a drawing of the device.  After running it past NewOCR, and running through Google Translate (which is invoked by NewOCR), it came up with this sentence, mixed in with a hotch-potch of Japanese words spelt out using the English alphabet:-
 * Sampo baby skull treasure relics from being treasure san was willing
 * and this gem:-
 * Head away from the skin where Ray treasure with control strains dog Neko soil
 * Can anyone tell me how to upload a jpeg image to Wikipedia Reference Desk?
 * It looks like only humans can read Japanese characters. 124.182.34.152 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You would need to register for an account to upload here. Note you shouldn't upload anything which is copyrighted such as most owner's manuals unless your usage complies with WP:NFCC. Asking for translation is not likely to comply with NFCC. I suggest you use the many other image sites which exist if you do need to upload such copyrighted content for that purpose. BTW most OCR depends significantly on the quality of the text (both the source text quality and the scan or digitisation quality). While I can't comment that much on Japanese character OCR, some searches suggest to me that you with decent quality text, you should achieve at 95%+ accuracy. One problem is you are attempting machine translation which is often bad enough with proper text, when you have errors mixed in you can expect it to just totally fail. It would be far better to try manual correction before translation. This may be difficult if you don't understand Japanese yourself but you should be able to help, particularly if you have a decent OCR engine which highlights characters it's not sure of and offers alternatives. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please translate Japanese
Can some nice person please translate the drawing title block at http://i57.tinypic.com/2a8lzfb.jpg?

The image quality is poor but it's the best I can do playing around with scanner settings. Even if you can only translate part of it, that will be a big help. I have added reference letters in red, to simplify discussion. 124.182.34.152 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a tag that might have been attached to an electrical appliance to record its maintenance.  What you marked as  M  is 目黒電波測器株式会社,  "Meguro Electronics Corporation, which doesn't have an article here or on the Japanese language Wikipedia, at least not that I can find.
 * Judging by the kanji 圖 in  C  and   P , I guess this is rather old.
 * The dates in  I  would appear to be in the Shōwa period:
 * "36.5.5" - May 5, 1962
 * "36.10.24" - October 24, 1962
 * "37.9.10" - September 10, 1963
 * "37.11.6" - November 6, 1963
 * That's a start, at least. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Shirt58. I was mystified by the dates - I know the instrument could not date back as far as 5/5/1936!  I tried NewOCR on it, but it came up with gibberish (See question above, Is there a machine Japanese translator?)  Do the characters in Section M translate exactly as Meguro Electronics Corporation (their current name) or something a bit different being their name back in 1962?   I tried using a Japanese/English dictionary and came up with Meguro Electromagnetics ......, but could not identify the remaining characters.  The Poster Known previously as 124.182.34.152 58.167.224.20 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The name 目黒電波測器株式会 is the same as what they use now on their website (http://www.meguro.co.jp/index.html). The characters 測器 refer to measuring devices or instrumentation, which is not specifically mentioned in the English-language "Meguro Electronics Corporation", if that is relevant to you. (Btw, I just love their English-language slogan: We provide the added value service beyond your needs so that our brand may be trusted eternally.) 86.176.209.54 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's confusing. The image is, as I said, not a maintenance tag but the title block of a drawing.  The drawing depicts an electronic laboratory instrument which I have.
 * With the aid of a Japanese/English dictionary, I identified the first 2 characters (目黒) as "Meguro" (a city within the greater Tokyo area), and the next two (電波) as denpa ie "electromagnetic". I could not match up the remaining chanracters. No you have indentified the next two (測器) as "measuring devices/instrumentation", which Google translate says is pronounced "sokutei".  That's marvelous, because the actual instrument is clearly branded in the English alphabet as "Meguro Denpa Sokki".   I could not find "sokki" in the dictionary or online tool.  So the meaning so far is "Meguro Electromagnetics Instrumention".
 * What do the remaining characters (株式会) mean? I tried NewOCR on it before and got gibberish.  But now that you have included the characters in your response, I copy-pasted them into Google translate and got "shares association".   Briliant!
 * So, with the last character (社) the whole phrase means Meguro Electromagnetics Instruments (Stock) Company Limited.
 * Can anyone help with the other section in the linked image above?
 * 58.167.224.20 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I somehow missed 社 off the end when I copied and pasted the name above. It should be 株式会社. This describes a type of Japanese company structure or incorporation, a bit like "Limited" or "PLC" (I don't know the exact legal details or exact correspondence with company structures in other countries.) 会社 by itself is just "company", and 株式 is something to do with company shares. 86.176.209.54 (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In box L, メータ means "meter", so I would hazard a guess that the drawing relates to something called a "Q meter", possibly the one here? I think that 結線図 beneath may mean "wiring diagram" or something like that. Let's wait for someone to come along whose Japanese is better than mine! 86.176.209.54 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 圖番 is 図番, which means 'figure no.' 1台分 can be translated as 'each', or 'per machine'. The handwritten 前図通りかきかえ means something along the lines of 'overwritten in the same way as the previous illustration'. Which other sections haven't been done yet? For dictionaries, the best by far online is Eijiro  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  15:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 型式 in box F means "model" or "type". I'm curious about the character in boxes C and D that looks like 又 on top of 八. 86.176.209.54 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never seen that before, and it's not in my Japanese IME and it's not in my Nelson. As it's handwriting, it's probably a stylised, shortened form of something else. We'll need a native speaker for this one. After it in C:圖番 Figure no. [illegible kanji] 材料名 Name of material. Then in D: 材料寸法 Material dimensions [illegible kanji] 重量 Weight. I think it's a number, ending in 8 (two digits, one on top of the other). Is the figure no. not written under the table?  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost all of it has been elucidated now.  The title box is now starting to look a bit odd.  "Name" and "Drawing Number" appear in two places - why would they do that?   The phrase after the dates in Box I (前図通りかきかえ), writing "overwritten in the same way as the previous illustration"  is not very informative, and an odd thing to write.  A draftsman would normally write something against each date, like "Error in such and such corrected", or "So and so part strengthened." Any chance it should be translated as Redrawn to match other updated/changed drawings (for this product)? 121.221.210.239 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Redrawn to match the previous drawing(s) would be better English, but I translated it literally. かきかえ（書き換え） means 'rewrite/redraw'. 再書き would be 'rewrite/redraw'. 前図通り means 'as in the previous drawing(s)'. …に合わせて would be 'to match'. But why redraw something to make it the same as what it was before? That makes no sense. Surely they must have a copy of the previous drawing(s)? I have always disliked having to translate handwritten notes, because they are inevitably too short for the translator to know what they refer to, and would only make sense to the person(s) they are intended for. Where is Oda Mari when you need her most...? Oh, and the empty box J 尺度 is 'scale'.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  05:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the 又 (mata) with a 八 under it - notice that this 又 begins with 'm', and the MQ-160A does also, and they are both designated as the Figure No. Just a shot in the dark, but may be relevant. I have no I idea what the '8' is.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  05:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redrawn to match the previous drawing(s) might be better English, but it makes no sense to write it if by "previous" is meant previous versions of the same drawing. Why would you amend a drawing to be the same as it was before?   However, a product such as depicted by this drawing would require many drawings - perhaps a couple of dozen.  Normally drawings are numbered, either in the order they got drawn, or in accordance with some in-house system, such as 01 for concept drawings, 02 for mechanical parts, 03 for circuits, and so on, or some such.  When the need for a change occurs, it is normal to amend the drawing in wich the change is best shown in detail, and include the date and a brief description of the change - what, where, and why.  If other drawings need to match, they get amended as well, but there is no need to describe the what, where, and how again.  The draftsman will just put in a reference to the the dated change in the other drawing.  That is why I asked before if the translation should be Redrawn to match other updated/changed drawings ie "previous" as literally translated refers not to previous version of the same drawing, but other amended drawings in the set earlier in the drawing or numerical sequence. 121.221.210.239 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 121, I am agreeing with you. You've just said exactly the same thing. 'Previous' does equal 'earlier', however. On the other hand, there would be no need to amend them all, as you only need one up-to-date version.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  09:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked a native speaker, and he said the unknown "character" is 又 + katakana ハ, meaning または, i.e. "or". 86.160.86.68 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 *   KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your assistance, KageTora.  I'm still mystified by the comment in the change list, Redrawn to match the previous drawings.  As we have said, it makes no sense if by "previous" is meant previous in date/time.  It would make sense, and in fact correspond to a typical technical drawing notation, if by "previous" is meant earlier in the drawing numbering sequence with the set of drawings for the product.  I think you missed what I meant to say earlier.  When a change is made, it's not generally the case that ALL drawings in the set will be updated, but it often IS necesary to amend more than ONE drawing.  Let's say for example, a part needs to be changed to a different size.  The schematic diagram will be amended to show it.  The mechanical drawing of the chassis may need to be changed as well, to show how the mounting holes are now arranged to accomodate the larger part.  The assembly drawing may also need to be changed.  Only one of these needs, perahps the one that's first in the drawing set sequence, to have a note explaining what and why.  The other amended drawings can just say something like "Changed to match amended drawing such and such."  The trouble is, there is no single word in English that means "lower/earlier in the numerical order" or "lower ordered in the sequence" (in this case, of the set of drawings).  Maybe there isn't in Japanese either.  Or maybe the company just had a slack-arse draftsman who didn't think too hard on what he wrote.  121.221.210.239 (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence?
Is this sentence ambiguous? (cc. DrChrissy) A vet said that Scandinavian zoos find culling less objectionable than Dutch zoos which instead choose to use bachelor herds and birth control A user says "The sentence is now ambiguous - who supports sterilization and bachelor herds?", but to me that is very clear in this sentence. As I do not see the problem, I do not see a need to improve on it. But since I'm a non-native, perhaps I overlook something. Would like to hear some other opinions. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a case where the literal meaning is something other than what is clearly intended by the author.  It means that Scandinavian zoos find culling less objectionable than Dutch zoos .....   In other words, the parsing is of the form :-
 * A finds B less desirable than C, because C has the citeria .
 * Then, A will find something on the basis of C's criteria. that sounds a bit off. Timelezz (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It not ambiguous because the citeria can only belong to Dutch zoos, however it is not the best construction. It is not the best because the reader has to think about it.  It is better written as:-
 * Scandinavian zoos find culling less objectionable than either sterilisation or bachelor herds, even though Dutch zoos have bachelor herds and practice sterilisation.
 * 124.182.34.152 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the standard of comparison is not how much Scandish zoos object to sterilization, it's how much Dutch zoos object to culling. The sentence offered is not ideal but your reading is not reasonable. —Tamfang (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. For clarification, the vet speaking is a Dutch vet (which is clear in the article). Timelezz (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say the sentence is not ambiguous, but open to misinterpretation. Its one I find I have to think about to find the meaning. I would state it the other way round as two sentences. "Dutch zoos control animal populations with bachelor herds and birth control, as they have a strong aversion to culling. Scandinavian zoos use culling to control  animal populations as they do not hold this strong aversion." -- Q Chris (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I (English English) understood, without any problem, the original sentence to mean that Dutch zoos find culling more objectionable than Scandinavian zoos; and Dutch zoos use bachelor herds and birth control instead of culling. The original sentence makes no reference to how objectionable either Scandinavian or Dutch zoos find culling, nor how much more objectional Dutch ones find it compared to their Scandinavian equivalents; nor does it state that Dutch zoos choose to use bachelor herds and birth control because they find culling objectionable, to whatever degree. Bazza (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

She introduced to us a few schools right off the reel.
Hello. I have a question about the phrase "off the reel". I don't know for sure if I can use it in the sentence "She introduced to us a few schools right off the reel." If not, then how about "at a stretch"? I need your clarification. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.140 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Off the reel" means without pausing, I think it's normally used in terms of speech, similar to "she reeled off a list of schools". "At a stretch" kind of means the opposite—with difficulty, in extreme circumstances—although it can also mean in one lot/session such as "we waited for hours at a stretch". --Canley (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it means "immediately". Kind of an old-fashioned term. I've more often heard "right off the bat", like swinging at the first pitch the batter or batsman sees. An antonym of "right off the reel" could be "after a stretch", meaning after some length of time. "At a stretch" in your context would be something that's continuous for some length of time - such as waiting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In British English, "off the reel" is unknown (as far as I know), but you can "reel off" something, which means to recite a list from memory, for example "she reeled off a few schools that would be suitable". On this side of the Atlantic, "at a stretch" can also mean to do something beyond what is normally expected, for example "these schools are outside of your area, but you may be accepted at a stretch". Bugs's definition of a length of time is also understood here. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that "to reel off" is used in American English too. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

sth. is contracted out to sb.
Would you tell me whether the following two sentences involving "contract" as a verb are correct or not? "The orchard has been contracted out to him." "He has contracted for the orchard." Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.240 (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first example sounds fine, the second does not (unless he has shrunk, somehow). Better would be "he gained/won the contract for the orchard" or "he is contracted to the orchard" BbBrock (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the second sounds fine to this BrEng speaker (who works for a company that is both a contractor to and a contractor of others). However, it would more usually imply that he had tendered for the contract, not that he had actually been awarded it; if the latter was meant, "he has been contracted for the orchard" would be better, though BbBrock's first suggestion is better yet. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

at/on the edge
I'm not clear about the difference between "at the edge" and "on the edge", as in "He stood at/on the edge of the pond." and "They sat at/on the edge of the field." I would be much obliged if you could give me some explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.240 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, "at" = very near, while "on" = exactly there, and some "edges" can be stepped on, like the edge of a field, while others can not, like the edge of a cliff. So, you could either be "at" or "on" the edge of the field, but only "at" the edge of a cliff, as stepping on it would cause you to fall over.  I'd also say "at the edge of the pond" as being on the edge would get your feet wet.  StuRat (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with SturRat's sentiments up to a point, but my instinct is that in many cases, "on" or "at" are interchangeable. I was certainly able to find plenty of uses of "on the cliff edge" that didn't mean actually falling off; see House on the cliff edge and "...an obelisk on the cliff edge in memory of a child... who fell to her death here in 1846". I haven't been able to find a reference to support either argument - perhaps somebody else can do better. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I forwarded your question to a teacher of English. I am not sure whether her reply answers your question, but I am forwarding it here nonetheless: "one says standing "on a cliff "or "on the edge of a cliff" if the edge drops vertically and directly downwards! However if the pond is shallow you are standing at the edge of it!  Hope it helps? At the edge if a field lay a dead rabbit! However "edge" donates a drop of some sort!  Better to say a rabbit lay dead at one side of the field." DanielDemaret (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know how good your teacher of English professes to be, but an edge is simply the outside limit of something: ; "drop" has nothing to do with it. In English English, I understand "at" a cliff-edge to include the narrow margin of land from the precipice itself; whereas "on" a cliff-edge implies the very boundary between terra firma and fresh air. Bazza (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat with that teacher. I would not say "on the edge of a pond", nor "on the edge of field", nor "on the edge" of anything else that was essentially flat. I would say "at the edge" instead. 86.176.209.54 (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)