Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 November 19

= November 19 =

Need a Translation from English to Ket
If any one has access to a Ket dictionary or lexicon, please translate the following English text into Ket.

Before her eyes seen,

A moment immortalized in a single stroke.

The little death - unavoidable, inescapable.

The spiral; a death inconceivable,

To the joy of Jalika,

Triumph; a leap into the darkness.

Upon the moisture of morning dew,

Jalika slept well.

déhanchements (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it a prank or trolling? I hope you must know that there are only a couple of hundreds of speakers of the language, most likely neither of them speak good English, and even less likely they read this page. Plus the grammar is rather difficult, even if the language have an isolating grammar, it is not like you take a dictionary and translate word by word (try to do this with Chinese).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dictionary and grammar then... déhanchements (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So you expect somebody here to find a dictionary and grammar, learn the language and make your translation. Very funny. Why don't you do this yourself? Really, your only hope is to write directly to one of the linguists who study the language and who are mentioned in the article about the language. A small chance still exists some of them will answer to your weird request. Why Ket? Why your text? What is the point of all this? --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There, I already translated it myself, although it's not completely accurate. I wasn't expecting anyone to learn the language, I own a Jul'hoan grammar and dictionary, I use these to translate, but I still don't know Jul'hoan.
 * bū dēs haksem tōŋ,
 * ba'ŋ tet qūs bə̄nqoreŋ da-i-bèr.
 * qoim - bə̄ntoqtet esaŋ.
 * krug; kire qo da-i-bə̄nitam.
 * Jalika bu-dəɣa da-i-bèr.
 * ?; eŋbet qo'n ka.
 * Ulam qonoks ī ultu ə̄t,
 * Jalika aqta bu-usen.

déhanchements (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure your poem translation can be set beside English As She Is Spoke, a work highly-praised by Mark Twain! -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What does dubitantibus mean? Presumably Legal Latin
Our article Harry Willcock includes the word "dubantibus" in the report of his appeal. This appears to be its only occurrence on Wikipedia. What does it mean, please? DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like an erroneous form of wikt:dubitantibus.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think it should be dubitantibus which is the Latin plural of dubitante, see . shoy (reactions) 15:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It means that the two justices mentioned (Evershed and Devlin) were opposed to the decision - literally it means "with Evershed and Devil doubting". I'm not sure if the terminology would be an exact match, but it's the same idea as when Supreme Court justices write a dissenting opinion. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not the same as dissent; we (of course) have an article on it. "Devil", by the way, may be a slightly extreme description of Devlin. HenryFlower 11:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, must have other things on my mind! I didn't know about dubitante before but that's perfect. I guess it's meant as an ablative absolute phrase. Dubitante is the singular and dubitantibus is the plural. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds right to me. shoy (reactions) 14:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Likely connected with "dubious". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Narrator: Baseball Bugs is a clever clogs. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks all, and sorry for mis-typing it in the body of the question!. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is the word "Internet" capitalized?
Why is the word "Internet" capitalized (with a capital letter "I")? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It is widely seen as a proper noun. Please read Capitalization of "Internet". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had no idea that we had such an article.  Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, there are parallel arguments for capitalization (or not) of words like "God" (or if you prefer "god") and "Universe" (or if you prefer "universe"). With the god/God situation: when speaking of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, since those traditions have only the one god, English tends to capitalize the word God as a proper noun, even though that isn't the God's name (c.f. YHWH, etc.), but lower case when discussing the concept of a deity (Greek gods). Similarly, Universe is often capitalized when referring The Universe, but lower case when discussing the concept of universe ("The Universe" may only be one universe among many).  We also see this with "Solar System" and "Sun" and "Earth" (Earth is the fourth planet from the Sun in the Solar System), but "there may be other solar systems around other suns, and the composition of the earth may be chemically different from the soil on our own planet").-- Jayron 32 15:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is a related question for this post and the post immediately below. One Wikipedia article is entitled Capitalization of "Internet", where the "word as a word" (Internet) is placed in quotation marks. And the other Wikipedia article is entitled Singular they, where the "word as a word" (they) is placed in italics. Is this incorrect? Should they both be in quotation marks? Or both be in italics? Or is it correct, as is, for some reason? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The word "their"
Is it proper or improper to use the word "their" when referring to a singular noun? I was always taught that it was wrong. But, nowadays, it seems to be more "accepted". An example sentence: This test will assess a student's mathematical aptitude, and will determine their class placement.  Is the word "their" used properly in that case or no? I see things like this all the time. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read Singular they. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Again, I had no idea that we had such an article.  Thank you.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if by "nowadays" you mean "the past 650 years or so" then you'd be right. If you'd like to return to a time before the use of the singular they was common in English, you're going to need to start speaking Early Middle English and no one will understand you.  The people who taught you it was wrong were, sadly, mistaken.  Some people make rules just to make them.  Telling other people they are wrong makes them feel self-important.  You can safely ignore those people.  -- Jayron 32 12:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No, I am not referring to 650 years back as "nowadays".  I am referring to perhaps 10 or 15 or 20 years or so.  The references to teachers in my post go back to grammar school in the 1970's and 80's.  I had excellent teachers.  In all fairness to them, they were probably trying to teach young kids the very basics of subject-verb agreement.  And perhaps they did not want to confuse the little kids and "muddy the waters" with a topic such as the "singular they".  I doubt that they were all uneducated and/or misinformed.  And I doubt that they were trying to lead us (their students) astray.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you have it backwards, . Almost all kids - in fact, almost all people - in all periods have been able to handle the grammar of their native language(s) perfectly well, until teachers come along and tell them that the way they speak their native language is "wrong", and they have to learn to say it some other way. In many cases this is straightforward - they just have to learn that when they are talking to teachers and other authority figures they just have to use this word instead of that word. But in some cases, where the "rule" involves an aspect of grammar that doesn't really exist in their language, it is the insistence on such a rule which confuses and complicates. use of "I" vs "me" and "who" vs "whom" are examples. But I don't see that either the use or the non-use of singular they is liable to confuse. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your comment made me realize: in my original question, I am referring to (proper) written English, not spoken English.  I am not sure if that makes any difference to this discussion thread.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It doesn't muddy the waters at all. If kids can handle the fact that "you" can be both plural and singular, they can handle that "they" can be both plural and single.  There's nothing inherently different between those two usages.  I'd like to give your teachers credit (or whoever wrote the curriculum they taught you credit), but in this case there is little evidence they were trying to make it easier.  They were following prescriptivist grammar that has never been in use commonly in English except among prescriptivist grammarians.  -- Jayron 32 14:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am no linguist or grammarian or whatever. But, I think those are two different cases, indeed ("you" being both singular and plural; and "they" being both singular and plural).  "You" (singular) acts as it should with singular nouns.  "You" (plural) acts as it should with plural nouns.  The "rub" is that "they" is a plural pronoun, and yet it can work with singular nouns.  So, it is an exception (of sorts).  And, yeah, I can see it confusing the heck out of little kids.  Kids today probably don't even know what an adjective or an adverb is.  Much less, that the word "they" is an exception to the concept of singular/plural agreement.  They probably have a hard time with the rules, much less the exceptions to those rules.  That's my two cents.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? How so?  You (plural) takes the same verb conjugation as you (singular), and grammatically they are indistinguishable.  Why not they (plural) and they (singular)?  "You should leave now"  Which "you" is that?  What is your context from the grammar?  There is none.  They as a singular pronoun is no different than you as a singular pronoun.  -- Jayron 32 15:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * and  Thanks.  So, let's go back to my original example.  Is it correct or incorrect to write: This test will assess a student's mathematical aptitude, and will determine their class placement.?  And is it correct or incorrect to write: This test will assess a student's mathematical aptitude, and will determine his or her class placement.?  I assume both are correct.  Certainly, the second one is correct, since the singular "student" agrees with the singular "his or her".  Yes, I can see students getting confused.   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't like to use the singular their (and I usually don't in formal prose) or the somewhat awkward his or her, you can often recast a statement in the plural: "This test will assess students' mathematical aptitude and will determine their class placement." Deor (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, : I can't answer questions about "correct". In my view, in the context of the English language (and indeed most languages), "correct" is a two-place predicate, and is incoherent without a specification of which authority's rulings are to be used. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This is just a big controversy in English. Some people disagree with prescriptivist grammar, and they will disagree with any prescriptivist rule except for ones about gender-neutral vocabulary. Argument for "singular they" is as much prescriptive as the argument against "singular they", if the reason is "because it promotes gender neutrality". Some people claim to feel "offended" to see the alternative - "generic he" - and even say that "generic he" is grammatically incorrect. Personally, I see nothing wrong with using the pronoun it.


 * This test will assess a student's mathematical aptitude, and will determine its class placement. (use of it)
 * This test will assess a student's mathematical aptitude, and will determine the class placement. (removal of pronoun)
 * This test will assess one's mathematical aptitude, and will determine one's class placement. (use of one)
 * This test will assess a student's mathematical aptitude, and will determine ___ class placement. (use of a blank)
 * This test will assess a student's mathematical aptitude, and will determine 伊 class placement. (use of a gender-neutral Chinese pronoun character, pronunciation may borrow from the Chinese or whatever the speaker wants to say, and if the speaker uses the generic he or generic they, then let that be so) SSS (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * SuperSuperSmarty -- many people would have strong objections to being referred to by a pronoun which usually refers to inanimates. In grammar, "neuter" is not the same thing as "epicene"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Words as words
Here is a related question for this post and the post immediately above. One Wikipedia article is entitled Capitalization of "Internet", where the "word as a word" (Internet) is placed in quotation marks. And the other Wikipedia article is entitled Singular they, where the "word as a word" (they) is placed in italics. Is this incorrect? Should they both be in quotation marks? Or both be in italics? Or is it correct, as is, for some reason? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Orthography is not linguistics, and the arcane rules of style are not readily connected in any meaningful sense to the rules of language. In other words, the case, italicization, and punctuation of words is fairly arbitrary.  Some internal consistency is probably needed here, but which internal consistency we choose is arbitrary.  Whatever the relevant manual of style says, go with that.  -- Jayron 32 14:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And, for the record, Wikipedia's own internal style guide This. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I scanned that quickly.  So, that Wikipedia MOS is stating that "word as words" should, preferably, be in italics.  Correct?  But, it seems that that MOS rule is for article text.  Does it also apply to article titles?  Do article titles have different rules than article text?  I think they do, because I vaguely remember a similar discussion about some similar distinction in the past.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not; where the title is a phrase that includes other text elements, we follow the rules of writing those elements (titles of large works in italics, titles of small works in quotes, etc.). See Article titles which explicitly says to use the same formatting one would use in the text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So, that means that the title of the article, Capitalization of "Internet" (with quotation marks), should correctly be Capitalization of Internet (with italics).  I will change it.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I just went ahead and changed it. While doing so, I wondered if the original editor meant to use the quotation marks ("Internet") before and after the word as the HTML computer mark-up code for italics ( Internet ).  I can see that mistake easily happening. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's one example of a "word as word" italicized in a Wikipedia article's title: Definition of planet. — Kpalion(talk) 17:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)