Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 June 5

= June 5 =

Thousand Families Poetry
Does 千家诗 have an official English translation? Like how 三字经 is known as Three Character Classic? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.iciba.com/千家诗 (Google is surprisingly helpful)  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  12:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Google indeed is helpful, but I was hoping for a better answer. I do not find that site particularly reliable too. No Wikipedia article on it too... ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okeedoke. But you can right-click on my link, and look around. Qianjiashi is most commonly used, it seems. Not just on that site, but on many sites about this. Some Chinese names do not have 'official' translations. They are simply romanized. And I lived in China, work as a translator, and had no idea what that was until you mentioned it, so it's not surprising there is no wikipedia article on it.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a zh.wiki article on it too... I just needed a translation to better the article Huang Zunxian. Thanks for the help. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Forming a cross-person genitive.
Hello, again!

A well established quirk of Indo-European grammar dictates that nouns (far oftener than not) become rendered in the 3rd person, and that one may only use pronouns for the first and second persons. Indeed, apart from a handful of logical or rhetorical devices (e.g. "Socrates is a man" or "That's enough, woman!") we, constantly, remain bound to utilize "I," "you," "me," etc. This presents a problem in the genitive case, however.

If someone, for instance, says "Those are America's and Britain's responsibilities," then it means something rather different from "Those are America and Britain's responsibilities." The former—with `s following both nouns—implies different possessions by each party; whereas, the latter—with `s only following the final noun—implies that both parties share possession. This, of course, functions quite adequately when said parties all constitute 3rd persons.

But, when it comes to mixing nouns and pronouns, I'm confused. To wit, when two people share a group of friends, would it seem correct for one of them to say "Those are Linda and my friends"; "Those are I and Linda's friends"; or "Those are me and Linda's friends"? And, if they don't share the friends in question, then would he say "Those are Linda's and my friends," or "Those are my and Linda's friends"?

Thank You. Pine (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are mine and Linda's friends. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The wonderful thing about language (not limited to Indo-European languages) is that we can use the word 'both'. "Those are both mine and Linda's friends".  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  04:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd say "... are both my and Linda's friends" or "... are friends of both mine and Linda's" (though the latter is rather unusual; "are friends of both Linda and me" is, I think, how most people would express it). "Mine friends" isn't idiomatic, as we use possessive determiners rather than possessive pronouns to modify nouns. Deor (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of strict grammatical rules, "Friends of Linda and me" is perfectly fine.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  13:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For shared friends, one can say "Those are (the) friends of Linda and me". For unshared friends, one can say "Those are Linda’s friends and my friends".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Linda and my", "I and Linda's", "me and Linda's" all make me gag; only "my and Linda's" or "Linda's and my" is grammatical. (But, given the common acceptance of "to she and I", I guess the terrorists have already won so I should save my breath.)  —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)