Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 January 27

= January 27 =

Which do you think reads best?
"...the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported some 250 Armenian intellectuals to Ankara, with the majority being eventually murdered."

or

"...the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported some 250 Armenian intellectuals to Ankara, the majority of whom were eventually murdered."

Or even a better alternative if one can be suggested. Diff showing the context: Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The second one. The "being" clashes with the rest of the past tense for me. Not a fan of the serial comma after "arrested", but if the rest of the article does it like that, go with it. The beat between words should be a pause or an "and", I say. Maybe "most" instead of "the majority". "Rounded up" sort of goes without saying. Can't arrest people till you find them. Drop that, and the choice between slightly offending the pro- or anti-comma readership disappears. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with InedibleHulk that you should prefer the second one to the first one. However, please notice that there are four other legitimate options:
 * "...the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported some 250 Armenian intellectuals to Ankara, with their majority being eventually murdered."
 * "...the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported some 250 Armenian intellectuals to Ankara, their majority being eventually murdered."
 * "...the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported some 250 Armenian intellectuals to Ankara, of whom the majority were eventually murdered."
 * "...the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported some 250 Armenian intellectuals to Ankara, whose majority were eventually murdered."
 * HOTmag (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I offer this, if moving the location of deportation is permissible:
 * ...the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported to Ankara some 250 Armenian intellectuals, the majority of whom were eventually murdered.
 * -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even simpler: "the day Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and deported them to Ankara; most of them were later murdered." Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses so far. Now that it is pointed out by new eyes, I agree that "rounded up" is not required. The "whom" seemed a bit clumsy and overly wordy to me. The issue about "majority" versus "most" is that only about 1/3rd are known for definite to have been killed, and 1/3rd are known for definite to have survived. I felt "most" implied something like 80% or more - though maybe this is a bit nit-picking. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If only a third definitely died, "majority" and "most" should both be avoided, in favour of "many", "some" or "around a third". Generally, a majority is 67%, or at least more than half. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding "rounded up" I beg to differ. I've read and written extensively about situations in WWII Europe under Nazi occupation or other Axis regimes, where the roundup was a deliberate action (in German: Aktion) that involved targeting individuals or groups, sometimes based on information obtained by collaborators or informers, and often involving armed troops (police, military, or paramilitary) carrying out sweeps of neighborhoods, searching houses, etc. As you're referring to a particular day and the disposition is deportation, it's the word "arrest" that's superfluous here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably "round up" does fit the event, those doing it must have had a prepared list of names, but the process isn't gone into in English-language sources. This particular passage in Armenian Genocide historiography has become a bit of a worn cliché, with almost the same words repeated in numerous sources. I'd like it to be as short as possible because its purpose in the lead is just to explain "why April 24th" - that's why I said "rounded up" was not required. But I realise this aspect is a content issue, not language. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * HOTmag, sorry but I dispute three of your 4 proferred suggestions (nos. 1, 2 and 4). "Their majority" and "whose majority" don't work at all for me. They're technically correct, but I cannot imagine any native speaker ever uttering such forms of words.  Those expressions might perhaps work in a context where a group of people had attained the age of majority (18 in most places, traditionally 21).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Marsupial cheeks
In P.D. James' The Private Patient (2008) we encountered the description of a person having "marsupial cheeks" which baffled us [Yanks], nor did the term appear upon searching via Google. Now in The Lighthouse (2005, Vintage Books for Random House) by the same author: "The young woman [...] appeared older than her thirty-two years. [...] Her mouth was small but firm, between slightly marsupial cheeks." (p. 162) We expat Yanks could only surmise this hints at the distensible cheek pouches most familiar to us from such common rodents as the chipmunk and hamster - though among the marsupials only the koala is so blessed. So what may we suppose our author is getting at? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In anatomy, a marsupium is a pouch. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)




 * My answer was brief because I was on my way out the door. The same sort of confusion occurs with the word amphibian and carnivore in common usage.  As for chipmunks, we feed them peanuts, and they will grab them still unshelled, nibble the rough edges off, and take off with one in each cheek pouch and a third in their teeth. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would assume it means big cheeks, too, in an analogy with the abdominal pouch on a marsupial. I do agree, however, that using an animal with actual cheek pouches would make for a better analogy. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It might have been intended as an analogy, but P D James was an accomplished writer, so perhaps she was using the less common first definition of the adjective marsupial in the OED: "Of a part of the body: resembling a pouch".


 * That def itself seems to be based on the analogy. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * See marsupium. This has nothing to do with an analogy based on the clade of mammals most closely related to the placental mammals.  It simply has to do with a Latin word, borrowed from the Greek, which refers to a pouch. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the etymological fallacy, to me, which also have us believe that a gymnasium is only where you exercise naked. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The use of marsupial to mean just pouched dates back to 1696. I'm not sure that Australia or the Americas were widely explored by people who called the animals marsupials at that time, in fact usage for the infraclass of mammals seems to date back only to 1805, though Tyson used it to describe the opossum in 1753.    D b f i r s   19:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Marsupial" started as an adjective meaning "having a pouch". Over time it also became a noun. I don't know if rodents have "pouches" as such, but that could be worth looking into. The pocket gopher, for example... Yes, they do. Not so with squirrels, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) What, exactly, are you saying might be fallacious, StuRat? Are you saying that instead of having pouchy cheeks, given the word's etymology, James' poor character had opossum-like cheeks, based on the infraclass Masupialia? as erected by Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger in 1811? μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Possums' pouches are not in their faces. They're part of the females' reproductive system, as with other marsupial animals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I child I saw and touched opossums in the wild, as well as around the garbage cans, and the very cute juveniles hiding under the patio. I find StuRat's bringing up the etymological fallacy confusing, since obviously the original etymological meaning was being used.  I can't imagine James was describing her cheeks as having a more recent meaning, like the second largest subgroup of the mammals as a whole.  What would it mean had James said she had placental cheeks?  Or perhaps Stu meant assuming the word somehow referred to the animal, not just "pouch" was the fallacy? μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The word used in the quote was "marpusial", not "marsupium". "Marsupial" no longer primarily refers to generic pouches, or marsupial would have said so. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. So I see where the disagreement lies, but I still highly doubt that there is any sense in which James' victim could have had cheeks like the Koala, Opossum, or Tasmanian Devil. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I said it means "cheeks like the abdominal pouch of a kangaroo". StuRat (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ... but I still think that P D James would have been aware of the first OED definition of the adjective, even if some of her readers were not.   D b f i r s   22:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"still are" or "are still"?
Is it "still are" or "are still"?:

"Larry Fine, American piano technician and author of the known The Piano Book, considers Hamburg Steinway pianos to be of a higher quality than Queens Steinway pianos. In 2010, the Steinway factory in Queens made some changes in its manufacturing processes and materials in order to upgrade the quality of the Queens Steinway pianos. Larry Fine was invited by Steinway officials to tour the Queens factory to see some of the manufacturing changes. Larry Fine wrote in his Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer of Spring 2011 that the changes have improved the quality of Queens Steinway pianos, but that Hamburg Steinway pianos still are of a higher quality than Queens Steinway pianos."

OR

"Larry Fine, American piano technician and author of the known The Piano Book, considers Hamburg Steinway pianos to be of a higher quality than Queens Steinway pianos. In 2010, the Steinway factory in Queens made some changes in its manufacturing processes and materials in order to upgrade the quality of the Queens Steinway pianos. Larry Fine was invited by Steinway officials to tour the Queens factory to see some of the manufacturing changes. Larry Fine wrote in his Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer of Spring 2011 that the changes have improved the quality of Queens Steinway pianos, but that Hamburg Steinway pianos are still of a higher quality than Queens Steinway pianos."

--TheReferenceProvider (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Either one works to my ear/eye, with no perceptible change in emphasis. Wabbott9   Tell me about it....  15:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * They both work, but I might go with "are still", as "still are" might be confused with "stellar", as in the phrase "stellar quality", when spoken aloud. Not an issue if it's never to be read aloud, but we do want to avoid the "Mairzy Doats" scenario if it is. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An important question - what did Larry Fine actually write? It's probably best to use wording that's as close to his as possible. Tevildo (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * His full name is mentioned 3 times. By the second time, it could be just "Fine", and the third time it should be just "he".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am looking for one good word to describe "how many years ago something happened".
I am looking for a good word (a single word or perhaps two) that essentially means "how many years ago something happened". For example, something like this: ''The Civil War occurred in 1865. That is a _____ of 150 years ago.'' I tried words like "duration", "time span", "elapse", etc. But, I can't think of a decent word that quite fits. I do not want to re-phrase or re-word the sentence. I'd like to keep it as is, with a good word to fill in that blank. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, per both Jefferson and S&W I'd just drop the whole "a _____ of 150". If you want a word, "period" might serve, but I'm not particularly fond of it in this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "as per Jefferson and S&W"? As I said, I don't want to re-phrase or re-word the sentence.  I want a good word to fill in the blank. I don't want to drop the whole "a _____ of 150" part. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thomas Jefferson: "The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." Strunk and White (well, Strunk from the public domain edition - my current editions of S&W are with several students): "A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts." Therefore: "That is 150 years ago", although my instinct tells me it maybe should be "That was 150 years ago". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interval, gap, remove, distance, lapse? (And their synonyms) Contact Basemetal   here  17:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if you do find such a word, 'ago' seems redundant. Contact Basemetal   here  17:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Civil War occurred in 1861 and its "duration" has been 4-5 years. Moreover you add "ago" so a word like "period" does not fit; IMHO of course. I suggest "Event", User:Joseph A. Spadaro--Pierpao (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't understand your post at all. The year 1861 is not important.  I simply used 1865 as an example.  The War's duration of 4-5 years is not relevant.  So, again, I don't follow what you are saying.  You are suggestion the following:  The Civil War occurred in 1865. That is an  event  of 150 years ago. ... ?  So, I am not sure if that is your suggestion, exactly?  If so, the word "event" describes the Civil War.  I am trying to describe the time gap (150 years), not the event (the War).  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Pardon my impertinence, Joseph, but I think you're trying to achieve the impossible. As others have said, you're using "ago" incorrectly.  You can say "Something happened 150 years ago", or "Something happened in 1865, 150 years ago", or even "Something happened 150 years ago, in 1865".  If you want to emphasise just how far back that was, I suppose you could introduce an adverbial expression like "as much as 150 years ago" or "all of 150 years ago".  But a noun just doesn't fit there; not without abandoning any pretence at good writing.  Abandon the try-hard second sentence, and say what you mean in one sentence, without any unnecessary space-filling words.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jack; having the "ago" in there means that any extra word in that blank would introduce confusion about whether you're discussing the duration of the event or the time elapsed since then. Matt Deres (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just "span" is fine, since we know it is a span of time. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "That is a span of 150 years ago", or just "That is a span of 150 years". I'd be embarrassed to write the first "sentence" and I dislike the second. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You can't have both "period/era/duration" (in the sense you are using it) and "ago" in the same sentence. "Ago" is a point-to-point expression, so "X lived 500 years ago", "Event Y happened 1000 years ago" or "The era of the dinosaurs was 65 million years ago" are all okay, but all of them refer to a point in time of n years ago, rather than the period of time between then and the present.
 * If you want to refer to that period of time between then and now, you cannot use "ago". You could say "500 years have passed since X's death", or "The gap between us and event Y is 1000 years", or "A period of 65 million years separates us from the dinosaurs" - those are all okay. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Civil War occuring in 1865 is an occurence of 150 years ago. That's an odd thing to write out, but it's the only thing that fits the blank, by my ears. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Civil War occurred during 1861-1865. It ended 150 (or 151) years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, I just "made up some numbers" because they were not relevant to the question I was concerned with. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Revised question
OK. Thanks. Wow, well this topic veered way off from what I had intended. I thought that my question (as worded) would have been an easier way to get to where I wanted to get to, without unnecessary detail. So, let's forget that whole Civil War sentence. This is what I really want. See the following article: List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees. In the last two charts (the third and the fourth ones down), there is the final column on the right-hand side. It is labelled currently as "Years Ago". I'd like to find a better word for the header of that column. Any ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Years since winning", "Years since win" ? - Nunh-huh 20:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Time"?. If you prefer a word like "period" or "span" you must not write "ago". I hope this is helpful Joseph A. Spadaro .--Pierpao (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Years since win" for the first table (as suggested above) and "Years since nomination" for the second. You could put "Time" instead of "Years" if you wish, but putting "Years" means that it doesn't need to be repeated with the numbers below.  Why do you have an aversion to "ago"?    D b f i r s   21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have an aversion to "Years Ago". But I thought there might be a better word, like "duration" or such (that would be a single word). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "Years from present" is probably the only other option, other than "Years since win/nomination". "Years past" or "elapsed" might be ambiguous. But "Years ago" is shorter and probably just as clear as "Years from present", if not more. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about 'Era'? Not in general I might add...only for the charts you linked to. Akld guy (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way is the time elapsed since the time actor X won an award an "era"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just noticed your comment. The time elapsed is not an era. The era in which actor X won the award was Y years ago. Akld guy (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In some fields it might be called time depth. —Tamfang (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Reign" might work for the Emmy winners, though it could sound a bit severe for honorary titles, and doesn't work for nominees. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another word specific to the chart heading: 'Legacy'. Akld guy (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How is "Legacy" "specific" to the heading? I don't understand. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Legacy means 'left to those who come later'. It can convey a sense of historicality. By 'specific' I meant in regard to the OP's reference to the charts in the link he provided, not in the general sense with which he started the thread. Akld guy (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand. You can't put "legacy" in that column header - it would make no sense. Do you mean "legacy" is a word that comes into your head when you are thinking about old academy award winners? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The chart contains the names of famous actors, directors, and so on, who won their awards decades ago. They left a legacy to us of winning the award and their legacy extends to the present day in that they are now the oldest still alive in those categories. You wouldn't use legacy in the case of the (thousands) of others who historically won awards but died. In the sense that I'm trying to explain, the 'legacy' is an attribute of the actor,director, not the award. Akld guy (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your point about the actor's legacy, etc. But it would not be an appropriate title for that column.  It would not make sense to say that, for example, Olivia de Havilland's legacy was 77 years ago. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're reading a too-literal meaning into legacy being the '77 years ago' because the chart is arranged that way. As I said in my previous post, the legacy is not the award. Nor is it the time period. It is an attribute of the actor,director. The legacy of Olivia de Havilland is that her award was earned 77 years ago. Akld guy (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I understand what you are saying.  That being said, I think that labeling the column as "legacy" would cause more -- rather than clear up any -- confusion.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am keeping the column header as "Years Ago". I don't see any better alternatives, as of yet. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)