Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 March 20

= March 20 =

the date before the place at the end of a novel?
At the end of a novel, a writer may indicate where and when he or she wrote the work. But I'm not certain if the date comes before the place or the other way round, like "May,1990 in London" or "London in May,1990". I want your idea. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.225.219 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the 'in' is not necessary. I would write 'May 1990, London', but 'London, May 1990' is also acceptable. It would be a matter of personal preference.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  01:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with KageTora that either order is acceptable, but my recollection is that, in the examples I've seen, the place usually precedes the date. The first example that came to mind was A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, which has "Dublin 1904 / Trieste 1914" at the end. The introduction of Bruce Jay Friedman's Lonely Guy's Book of Life ends with "BJF / Penn Station, 1978". Deor (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

fodder vegetables?
What are they?\What is their common denominator? could someone please elaborate? Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you checked our article Fodder? That may shed some light on it for you.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't... and it did help. thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(ECx2!!!) Characters....
Late at night + just woken up + just starting work = brain is still in bed, ∴ bone question.

If 'alphanumerics' means 'letters and numbers', and 'numerals' (or 'digits') means 'numbers', then what is just 'a, b, c'? 'Characters' encompasses them all (and could include symbols, I guess). 'Alphabetic characters' springs to mind, but is there a single word? KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 ) ( Chin Wag )  01:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Letters? Bielle (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I was wondering if there may be a more 'official' term - it's for an IT translation (most foreign translators tend to use 'alphabets', which is clearly wrong).  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  02:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Alphabetic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BB, but I need a noun.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  04:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Alphanumeric" is just a shorthand way of saying "alphanumeric character". Ditto for "alphabetic/character", but I can't say I've heard that shortening used in practice.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Alphabet" = noun   71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And "alphabetic" = adjective. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 71.20.250.51, thanks for pointing that out, but what would you think if a website asked you to 'enter your new password in no less than six alphabets'?  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  06:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Letters of the alphabet" is the only way to express that, I think. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but problem is, I am limited to a certain number of bytes for each string. I need to keep the messages as short as possible.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  07:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I'd be going back to Bielle's original suggestion, "Letters". Or "Letters only".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for an equivalent usage to "alphanumerics", then "alphabetics" is your answer. Although using just alpha characters (letters) as a password is not the strongest plan. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't shoot the messenger, BB. I didn't write the computer program. I'm 'merely' the translator.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  11:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowadays you can't be too careful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Bugs? 'Alphanumerics' is fair enuf, as it has to cover both letters and numbers.  But when it's letters only, the best word is ... er, 'letters'.  Why make it harder than it needs to be?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Letters" works too. The question is whether the OP wants a term in the same "style" as alphanumeric and numeric. That term would be "alphabetic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh.....'letters' it shall have to be. 'Alphanumerics' is fine for combinations of 'letters' and 'numerals', but 'alphabetics' sounds like some sort of Jane Fonda work-out video for toddlers.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  11:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

'Tas' - a three letter word
Morning Language desk.

I recently played a round of a well known phone based word puzzle game which encourages playing rounds with people you know, kind of putting down words with friends, sort of thing. Other turn-based word puzzle games on a phone device are available.

While playing one round, I was permitted to play TAS. What that, then, asked my opponent? Not sure, responded I, but it allowed me to put SEXY on a triple-word tile, so I'm not particularly interested. Of course, that is not true, I had to try to find out. Only, came there none.

My trusty OED account helped little. I saw "tas" within entries, but not as an entry in its own right. So, language desk, unless I'm missing something really obvious, what could this little three letter word mean?

With thanks.... doktorb wordsdeeds 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The plural of "ta"? -- Jayron  32  03:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See Wiktionary: tas. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of these games let you write 'backwards', because in the boardgame version(s), the players are not usually sitting next to eachother. 'Sat' (past tense of 'sit')?  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  04:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Jayron32 - as a northerner, that did cross my mind! User:KageTora - for this specific game, I'm not certain that is allowed (would that it were!). User:JackofOz - obliged, sir. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Wiktionary is wrong because that spelling existed only in Old French and Middle English, not even in early Modern English, so cannot be described as "alternative". Of course, if anyone can find any cites (not mis-spellings or scannos) to contradict my claim, I'll shut up.  ( I'm awaiting a response before I change Wiktionary, just in case I am wrong! )    D b f i r s   08:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a major 'problem' with online Scrabble-esque games. I have a problem when playing my brother in that he always jams a bunch of his letters into vaguely phonetic words until the game lets him play something. Its rarely a word either of us had heard before, but the computer accepted it and there is little to be done about it. 50.43.148.35 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Although most dictionaries list the British word "ta" (meaning thanks) only as an interjection, Merriam-Webster shows it as a noun, for which the plural would be "tas". --50.100.193.30 (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

TA might be accepted as an abbreviation for Teaching Assistant, in which case TAs would be its plural. DaveShack (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA
OED provides the pronunciation by "educated urban speakers of standard English in Britain and the United States" for the Latin cogito as /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ /ˈkɒ/.

To render that using IPA-en, would that be

or ?

Similarly, would the IPA-en for Latin sum be

or ?

These modern pronunciations are for the cogito ergo sum article, which also provides the Classical Latin pronunciation ({{IPA-la|ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm|}) in a footnote. humanengr (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * UK-speaker here, and I say /'kɔɡɪtəʊ/. I have never heard anyone say /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/. I know the length of the first 'o' is long in Latin, but we don't usually bother with that.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  06:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (another UK-speaker) I hear it as closer to /'kɒɡɪtəʊ/ than /'kɔɡɪtəʊ/, but otherwise I fully agree with KT above, and I've always heard the vowel short (much shorter than most American pronunciations), just as cogitate is usually /ˈkɒdʒɪteɪt/, not /ˈkəʊdʒɪteɪt/ (Wiktionary needs correcting). The big OED allows /'kɒɡɪtəʊ/ as an alternative.  (The number of speakers of Classical Latin here is diminishing, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Classicist say /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/.)  I would retain the Latin pronunciation /sʊm/ rather than Anglicise it to /sʌm/ but there might be differences of opinion there, so I won't push my northern viewpoint.    D b f i r s   07:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, really? To me, to do anything other than the best rendering you can of the Classical Latin pronunciation is just bizarre.  Why would you do that? --Trovatore (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a classicist, so I can do as I like. I think the shortening of the first vowel from /oː/ is possibly because that vowel is not found in southern British English (though it is in my dialect, so I've no objection to pronouncing it that way).    D b f i r s   10:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as citable sources for modern pronunciation are concerned, we have OED's British/American as /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ /ˈkɒ/; and Collins shows /ˈkɒɡɪˌtəʊ/ for BrE. Are there other citable sources for modern usage? (The Classic Latin is already provided in a footnote, so that is not an issue.) humanengr (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, modern usage is the Classic Latin pronunciation, or at least as best as you can do. That is, that's what I believe an educated American, at least, would try to do.  Note that /əʊ/ is not used in American English, so if OED says it is, I'm afraid that pretty much discredits them on the point right there.
 * By the way, what the ever-lovin' do you mean by /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ /ˈkɒ/? I'm not aware of any Latin phrase that starts with cogito ca, and indeed there is no such Latin word as ca, as far as I'm aware. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That was two alternatives "/ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ or /ˈkɒɡɪtəʊ/". I assume that the second alternative is a possibility for the American pronunciation, as well as for most British people, though the symbol "ɒ" will be interpreted as longer in most American English.    D b f i r s   08:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the second one is definitely not a possibility for the American pronunciation, because /əʊ/ does not exist in American English.
 * But the more important point is, why is anyone looking for a "modern" pronunciation? Sayings in foreign languages are pronounced in the language they come from.  Cogito ergo sum is in Latin, so you pronounce it in Latin.  If you don't, I'm afraid I consider that inferior usage. --Trovatore (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot about the second əʊ. Obviously the American ending will be different, too, as it is for many speakers in the UK (I don't pronounce əʊ either unless I'm putting on an affected "RP".)  The problem with Latin is that we are not sure how the Romans pronounced it (and there was much variation anyway), and each Latin scholar thinks that his version is the nearest to the conjectured original, even though he is influenced by his own native tongue.    D b f i r s   09:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And, iiuc, we have no idea how Descartes would have pronounced it. 😊 humanengr (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dbfirs -- thanks; iiuc, OED indicates when a pronunciation is specifically American. (It didn't in this case.) @Trovatore -- As English pronunciation of Latin has been recognized as legitimate (see, e.g., Traditional English pronunciation of Latin), providing reasonable guidance in this regard is a help for the reader. This is supported by at least the 2 major, citable authorities indicated. humanengr (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, at the very least, you should put the Latin pronunciation in the guide on a par with the supposed "modern" ones. It can be qualified as "Latin". --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * /'kɔgitəʊ 'ɘ:gəʊ sʊm/ in Brit.Eng. Don't forget, we don't pronounce the 'r'.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  08:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Trovatore -- I appreciate the point, but am hesitant to add to the length of this first line of the article. (Other substantive pronunciation issues are covered in the footnote as well.)


 * @KägeTorä -- The OED entry for ergo writes the pronunciation as you do, but the pronunciation guide (linked above) indicates that the 'r' is pronounced. humanengr (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't indicate that -- it's a (dia)phonemic transcription. — Lfdder (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lfdder for your help (once again). My initial question in this thread was prompted by changes made to the form you and I had worked on last June. I was looking for authority re the 'i" and 'u'. Do you have any pointers on that? humanengr (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the i should be transcribed w/ ɨ in IPAc-en (a schwa in AmE). OED and Collins transcribe sum w/ the vowel in foot (ʊ). I doubt anybody would pronounce it with the vowel in strut -- unless they've never heard it being said before and aren't even a tiny bit versed in Latin — Lfdder (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, when some people have /ɪ/, and some have /ə/, we write it ⟨ɨ⟩. — kwami (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

US English, and I pronounce it with /ɒ/ and /ʌ/. I knew a bit of Latin once upon a time, but it seems pretentious to try to mimic Latin vowels when speaking in English. I mean, I'd never pronounce Venus "wennoos". For those of you who use the /oʊ/ and /ʊ/ vowels, do you have an /ɛ/ in "ergo"? I noticed the comment "don't forget, we don't pronounce the 'r'." Well, if you wanted to be authentic, you would pronounce it, wouldn't you? And use a pure /o:/ rather than a diphthong? If we can use the NURSE vowel for "ergo", as the OED has it, we're already so far off from a Latin pronunciation that I don't see how anyone can criticize using the COG vowel for "cogito" or the STRUT vowel for "sum", or even a soft gee. — kwami (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Venus is a naturalized word. When you say "Venus", you are speaking English.  When you say "cogito ergo sum", you're not.
 * Sure, I understand we can't get perfect, and I have some doubts whether I could even make myself understood, when speaking to Cicero. But you do the best you can.  We can certainly do better than we would by reading it in English.   Even just KOH-ghee-toe AIR-go SUME.  Probably terrible, but still better than "traditional English pronunciation of Latin". --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite true. Like e pluribus unum and other Latin mottoes, cogito ergo sum is semi-naturalized.  — kwami (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In oral academic discussion (and others pretending toward such), most would (at least want to) use Classical Latin. In more general discourse, speakers presumably would prefer to not sound too grossly in error -- or at least not too far from the most common usage. In that context, I prioritize, from high-to-low, the issues as 1) primary stress on the first syllable of cogito, 2) hard 'g', 3) 'u' to distinguish from a simple 'sum'. How to pronounce 'o' might be #4. Lower priority are 'r' because it's regional; the 'i' because the syllable is not stressed. The intent of the footnote is help stem the spread of errors re #1 and 2 -- readers are much more likely to view a footnote than refer to the IPA guide. humanengr (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @kwami -- I’m US English and had 2 years of Mrs. Deane’s Latin in the long ago, hearing there the same pronounciation Trovatore did in Mrs. Fellows' class. In the decades since, it’s always bothered me when I hear /ʌ/ in cogito ergo sum — not because it’s not what I understand to be 'proper' Latin, but because it’s not how I would expect someone attempting to informatively address such philosophic subject matter would say it. So, given the context of its primary use being in philosophic discussion, I would prefer reverting to /ʊ/ which, as Lfdder notes, is the OED and Collins transcription. Thoughts? humanengr (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way &mdash; now I have some concerns about this /ˈsʊm/ in the Latin pronunciation. I'm sure I was taught /ˈsu:m/ instead (where no doubt the glide is an Americanization, but that's not my concern right now). Is there in fact a good reason to prefer /ˈsʊm/ over /ˈsum/, or vice versa, in the language of Cicero? --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose you could use the long vowel of "soon" in older RP. Is that considered closer to "proper" Latin?  I'm not familiar with the different schools of Latin pronunciation.  My teacher used a short vowel, but not /u/.  The short /u/ vowel (extreme close, back and rounded, like a monkey sound) is rare in modern English, though speakers of some other languages (like /Urdu/) will be familiar with it, and it occurs in my local dialect, but I seldom use it because it would sound very northern and old-fashioned.    D b f i r s   21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what the best theories currently are (that's kind of what I was asking). What I do know is, in Mrs. Fellows' class, sum rhymed with "loom". --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems there is a bit of an edit war going on the cogito ergo sum page. May I suggest we revert the changes to a point prior to this recent batch. humanengr (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Latin pronunciation needs to appear. A footnote is not good enough.  Note that even the article you pointed me to on the "traditional English pronunciation" says that it went out of style around the beginning of the 20th century. --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At 08:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC), you said "you should put the Latin pronunciation in …” and changed the article at 08:54. I responded here at 09:41. Lfdder undid your change at 10:49. You redid the change without responding here to my point. Putting aside for the moment the merits of your argument, it would seem proper for you to revert the changes, and then the discussion here can suitably proceed. humanengr (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, this isn't even a close call. It's a Latin phrase.  The response to your 09:41 point would be, the "other substantive points" are explained in the link to "IPA for Latin", and without them, the increase in length is not much. --Trovatore (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you are refusing to undo your changes so the discussion here can proceed. Instead, you declare that this isn't even a close call. Your arguments may prove convincing, but you are making it difficult to consider them further at this juncture. humanengr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Trovatore, though for the English. I would expect "soom" (FOOD vowel) before "suum" (FOOT vowel).  I was surprised the OED had the latter, and would only expect it with two CODE vowels in cogito and a trilled AIR vowel + ar in ergo.  As for it in Latin, there are different approaches, one of which is ignore vowel length and pronounce the vowels as in Spanish.  Another common one is palatalization of c and g as in Italian.  That's Latin as she is spoke, BTW.  — kwami (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, those two are roughly what I would call the "Classical Latin" and "Church Latin" pronunciations, respectively, though of course I understand that it's not likely that the former would be recognized as "good" pronunciation by an actual Ancient Roman. I am still not persuaded, though, that there's any such thing as cogito ergo sum in English.  (What's a "trilled vowel", BTW?) --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant that the AIR sound would be trilled, since that's a vowel for RP-speakers.
 * The OED marks it as an unassimilated phrase, but then provides it with English vowels rather than a Latin pronunciation.
 * BTW, although I agree w Lfdder on most things, in this case (showing the Latin) I agree with you. Classical Latin can be considered the target pronunciation for anyone who wishes to be authentic, just as we give the French pronunciation of Paris even though we (hopefully) don't hear it in English.  — kwami (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I started a new section on the cogito talk page to allow for further discussion. humanengr (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What are the differences between inflammation & infection
When is it accepted to use in one of them? 194.114.146.227 (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Infection is the presence of bacteria or other pathogens. It may or may not cause inflammation which is usually marked by redness and swelling.  Other things such as acid can cause inflammation.    D b f i r s   08:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to your things, I've got it. Thank you! 194.114.146.227 (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Please see inflammation and infection.--Shantavira|feed me 08:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese character identification
Can anyone please identify the Japanese characters in the scan at http://i61.tinypic.com/2m4zmac.jpg? It is a scan of a description of an electronic part in a 1960's factory catalog. Most of it is tables and graphs which I can understand, so I've only scanned the text. "6R-A3" is the standardised Japanese electronics industry part code. The designation "HiFi" and following few characters may or may not be the particular manufactuer's catchy marketing name for the device, or perhaps the family of devices that this part belongs to. 143.238.217.204 (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here it is ⇒　　　概要	6R-A3　Hi-Fi用は9ピン、ミニアチュア形の電力増幅用3極管であります. プレート内部抵抗が低いので、OTL電力増幅に適し、低供給電圧でも動作するように設計されているので、B電圧100Vの商用電源を直接整流して利用できます.   KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  10:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Marvelous! 143.238.217.204 (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Hi-fi is not a 'catchy marketing name' for a device - it's an actual name for a type of technology that largely grew out of fashion around about the time when CD players arrived on the scene or at least, the nomenclature did).  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  13:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I was speculating on why "Hi Fi" was embedded in the text, and thought it might be helpfull if the characters did not make complete sense to a person fluent in Japanese but not qualified in electronics.  Hi Fi / audio is not the application the part was originally designed for.  143.238.217.204 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A 9-pin miniature triode [specifically] for amplifiers sounds like it's perfect for a hi-fi, and not really for much else :) Maybe you were thinking of the 6SN7, but probably not, because that is specifically designed for amplifiers, too (though, admittedly, earlier designs were not). Being a professional translator is not just about knowing the language, it is also about knowing what you are translating, and if you have a text with something in it that you don't understand - you find out what it is - even if all you have is a product ID or something. Our job is not just mindlessly translating from one language to another, it involves lots of research, and is fascinating. In this case, however, 'hi-fi' was a word we used when we were kids to mean anything that played music.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  15:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

His concern for his daughter directed him toward home.
"He didn't go to the party. His concern for his daughter directed him toward home." I don't think "direct" is a proper choice in the above-mentioned context, but I can't figure out a right one. Could you enlighten me on this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.214.61 (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. However, if you feel it needs changing, "pointed him in the direction of home" is an alternative.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  10:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, "His concern for his daughter directed him towards the party" might be a tad more realistic :)  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  11:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He had to race home to catch her trying to sneak out "to the library". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or "led him home". -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or impelled him homeward. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Starting to begin
Is "XY is starting to begin." simply a pleonasm, or does this actually make sense in English? --KnightMove (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be said in jest, or for emphasis, but one would not use it in concise formal writing.   D b f i r s   13:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Whereas, "XY is in the initial stages of initializing" makes perfect sense?  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  13:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Questions like this really need the paragraph in which the term is found to make a judgment. In most cases "is beginning" would be preferable.  But you can always imagine some context: "thesecond machine is starting to begin its cycle already, but the first has seized up" where, due to some odd contrast, a pairing like this makes sense. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The question was inspired by the German-based pop song Taken by a Stranger. The chorus starts:
 * Taken by a stranger
 * Stranger things are starting to begin
 * According to German translations on the web, the meaning is something like "If you are fascinated by a stranger, follies will take their course". I wondered whether this is correct English and googled the phrase - as there are a few thousand hits, but not more, so I am still unsure. --KnightMove (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't bother me. It implies the contrast that all sorts of things have been beginning, but now even stranger ones are starting to begin.  Also, you can get away with almost anything for the sake of poetic license. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A matter of degree?
In data analysis, we often speak of a "representative sample", meaning that e.g. the features of a few thousand people are thought to capture the features of a whole country (let's set aside the details of sample choice, and assume it's done correctly with regard to the statistical approach).

The question: is "representative" a property that a sample only does or does not possess -- or does it make sense to use it qualified by degree? In other words, is "highly representative" more akin to "highly unique" (i.e. to be avoided in technical writing), or is "highly representative" more like "highly regarded" (i.e. no problem). My dictionary says "Representative: typical of a class, group, or body of opinion" -- which leads me to believe that "highly representative" is not good writing. On the other hand, I have the same problem with "typical", so I turn to you for semantic/linguistic thoughts on the topic. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, writing "highly representative" is awkward English. You can get around it by using the term in statistics confidence, which can work in lay language for non-statistics trained folk too.   You can say something like "The sample size is such that we have a high confidence in our conclusions." 143.238.217.204 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet "representativeness", defined as "the degree to which [an event] (i) is similar in essential characteristics to its parent population, and (ii) reflects the salient features of the process by which it is generated", does exist in decision theory or behavioral economics. See representativeness heuristic, for example. ---Sluzzelin  talk  15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True. "Representativeness" is a word you'll find an any good dictionary.  While you can write "The blah blah has great representativenes of such and such", writing "highly representative" is awkward English, as a sample is either representive or it is not.  It's a bit like writing "The dog has come in from the rain highly wet."  The dog is either wet or it isn't.  One should say "The dog has come in from the rain soaked to the skin."  In other circumstances "wetness" is a valid word.  143.238.217.204 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A sample can be more or less representative. For example, the sample may mirror the general population in age distribution, but not in level of education, racial or ethnic background, regional distribution, or any number of variables.  This is a question of methodology, and we usually refer to methodology in terms of strength or validity rather than height.  So I would prefer "strongly representative" or, even better, "representative across multiple variables" to "highly representative". Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely wetness has degrees? I wouldn't mind sitting next to a slightly wet dog, but I'd avoid close proximity to a very wet dog. Thanks all for the input so far! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. After some thought, I realize this is more of a math question than a linguistics question. I have now come to the position that "more representative" makes perfect sense. In the context of two subsets A, A' of X, we can (with perfect knowledge) quantify the representativeness with respect to X of A and A', and make comparative statements about the two properties. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese help: image descriptions and "what does the Japanese say?"
First, may I have a Japanese image description of File:Arrows in Okazaki.jpeg? The English is "Advertisements at an intersection in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan, featuring many arrows. The image has been cropped and color-balanced from the original; please contact me if you would like the unaltered version."

May I also have a Japanese description of File:Arrows in Okazaki edit.jpeg? The English is "Advertisement at an intersection in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan, featuring a depiction of traffic lights using a shade of blue, rather than green, for use illustrating the Japanese section of Distinction of blue and green in various languages. Cropped from the original by User:Garrett Albright."

Second, what does the Japanese in File:Arrows in Okazaki edit.jpeg say? (Please post the Japanese characters and English translation so I can tag the image and post text of both)

Third, if you are interested, what do the other billboards in File:Arrows in Okazaki.jpeg say? (I understand this may take some time)

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I won't translate your descriptions because I'd just embarrass myself, but the image text is 車検 "car inspection" on the bottom right, 岡崎で車検が安い "Car inspection is cheap in Okazaki" in yellow, １km先 パチンコ手前 "1 km ahead, in front of the Pachinko (parlor)" in the rounded rectangle, and 車検のコバック "Kobac car inspection" below that. -- BenRG (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "愛知県岡崎市の交差点における様々な矢印を使った看板" for "Advertisement at an intersection in Okazaki, Aichi, featuring many arrows"?　As for green and blue, see also Green. The caption of the image in the Japanese article is "Examples of arrows used in advertisements". Oda Mari (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I added the Japanese description to one image WhisperToMe (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese translation needed
Hi, may I please request a Chinese speaker take a look at Junior Writers Awards? There are a couple of references listed here and here. They are written in Chinese, and the mechanical translation I'm viewing isn't being very helpful. Basically I'm trying to figure out where we can put some inline-references. I'd also appreciate it if you could help to establish the subject's notability. I believe 2014 was the first year this award program was held, and we had some issues with conflict of interest and spam at the article. So any info you can dig up would be appreciated. The awards are based in Hong Kong and Macao. Much thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "based out of"
As a semi-regular AfC reviewer I often see articles that use the phrase "based out of " instead of "from" or "in". It is used in reference to people, bands, companies, etc - practically anything that has a definite location. As it usually occurs in pop-culture articles I suspect the phrase may be peculiar to younger writers and, as far as I can tell, mostly Americans. I wonder where the phrase originated and how it has become so popularly and (IMHO) inappropriately used? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this originated as a (literal) military expression; adopted to common usage originally to suggest a place that serves as a sort of "headquarters", but where one doesn't necessarily work or frequent. (I agree that common usage is largely inappropriate). Somewhat appropriate example might relate to a band who spends most of its time "on the road" but is "based out of" someplace where their recording studio is. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't it just an abbreviation of "based in but working out of"? It's not very common on this side of the Atlantic.    D b f i r s   19:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. It's not all that common in US, either.  Sometimes it is still used in the literal sense: "Seal Team Seven, based out of , began operations out of ..." 71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (EC) Unless you're an MP, with multiple homes you can claim all sorts of nonsense for, employ family members to do bugger all, and let your husband spend your government-issued credit card balance on porn, safe in the knowledge that only one or two will actually go to jail, rather than the whole bloody lot. "Based in Nottingham, but working out of Derby taxpayers' pockets". For example (I chose that particular un-example, so that I do not have to go to court for defamation of some random guy's character). Move along, nothing to see here. Ignore this total change of subject. I am too tired.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  19:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Richard Pryor was often based out of his mind. Otherwise, the phrase is not very common in America either. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are more than 4500 articles here on en.WP that contain the phrase - that's roughly 1/1000 of the total articles - a significant fraction IMHO. Looking at the first few pages of the search result it seems that it occurs disproportionately in music and sport related articles - thus reinforcing my impression of it being a feature of the language of young people. (BTW the linked search is only of mainspace, I suspect that including Talk pages would inflate the proportion as the phrase may have been edited out of many articles that once had it. I'm just too tired now to search that too, it's well past pumpkin time here so I'm off to bed... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a caution about accepting raw numbers of search hits: The syntax Wikipedia uses for internal searching does not totally match Google’s protocols. In Google, enclosing a text string in quotes produces results for that exact string; in Wikipedia, it does not necessarily have that effect.  For example, the very first hit from your search is Holy Trinity Catholic High School (Simcoe), which does not include the word "based" at all.  The next hit, Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker, does have the word, but not the expression "based out of".  The third one, Intel Active Management Technology, has the text string, but in the form of "... a hardware-based out-of-band", which is not what you’re looking for.  After that, the search does seem to find valid instances of "based out of" for at least a few pages, but I haven’t examined it closely after that.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect that "based out of" occurs in descriptions of bands and sports teams simply because they travel a lot (see the first reply by 71.x). -- BenRG (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We also have to be on our guard against the rise of the abomination-atrocity "based off of". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From what is that opinion based off of? — Preceding malapropic catachresis added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean "What is that opinion based off of from?"? :) --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That depends on who that opinion based off of from is to.  — Preceding nauseating comment added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of nonsensical misplacement of prepositions up with which I will not put...  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  20:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a cousin to Dizzy Dean commenting on a batter who swung at a bad pitch: "He shouldn't hadn't ought-a swang." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Guillemets 《 》
Hi, I've noticed guillemets 《 》 come up a lot in articles about Chinese subjects (and elsewhere I'm sure), for example here. MOS:QUOTEMARKS states that straight quotes are the preferred quotation mark for articles, but I'm curious what the procedure is in a table like below, where we are noting the Chinese title. Do we use italics/quotations as appropriate for major/minor works, or do we retain the guillemets?

Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Guillemet just says that they're used in Chinese "to indicate a book or album title". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, remember that Chinese doesn't have bold or italic typefaces, so they need some other way to distinguish titles from quotations. — kwami (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi and . Thank you, my question is about whether or not it is appropriate to use guillemets in articles when we are noting the Chinese titles of books or albums, or if we should still use italics (for books and albums) or quotation marks (for lesser works). In the above example, I'm not sure which version of the following we should normally see in articles:

or

or

If it helps, I use WP:AWB, and I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's worth my time to set up an automatica find/replace for guillemets, or if they're acceptable when we're translating Chinese text. I'll post my query at the MOS just in case this turns out to not be a good place to ask. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Chinese text should never be italic, and it looks bizarre to use Latin punctuation with Chinese characters. But why do we need anything at all?  The point of punctuation and changing font faces is to set off the title, but having it in Chinese characters sets it off just fine.  So I'd simply drop the guillemots:


 * {|class="wikitable"

! Year !! Title !! Chinese Title !! Role
 * 1988 || A Magic Doctor in Suzhou || 姑苏一怪 || Ye Tianshi
 * }
 * }


 * The only place I remember seeing Chinese guillemots where I thought they were useful was in citation footnotes that were entirely in Chinese, where the Chinese punctuation was necessary because the title was embedded in Chinese text. But I'd leave them in rather than use italics or Latin quotes. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)