Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 September 4

= September 4 =

Ato em frente ao Museu Nacional (Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) 2018-09-03


What does the title of this section mean? Obviously it's referring to something at the National Museum of Brazil today, following the terrifying fire that destroyed it yesterday. However, Google Translate renders it Act in front of the National Museum (Rio de Janeiro), which doesn't make much sense.

Also, what is the inscription in the pictured piece of paper (did I get it right), and to what does it translate? I know Portuguese switches N and M (from other Romance languages' perspectives), so itens doesn't sound particularly odd, but I'm definitely not sure. I'm guessing that it translates to "200 years of history, 20 million items, reduced to cinders". Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Although "cinders" might be a cognate, "ashes" is the more common translation (wikt:cinza). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * After looking through the images in that category, "demonstration" looks appropriate, and as one of the translations of "ato" is "ceremony" perhaps "vigil" would be better. Mikenorton (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ato is Brazilian Portuguese for "act", acto in the old orthography (the spelling was not changed in Portugal).  So it's a reference to the action in front of the museum, as you can see from the pictures.   Cinzas is indeed the word for "ashes", cf quarta-feira de cinzas, "Ash Wednesday".   In City A.M. last month there was a reference to "Ash Tuesday and Shrove Wednesday", so maybe we are becoming disconnected.   On the orthography, it's not quite as simple as that - for example the word in Brazilian Portuguese for a train (the railway variety) is trem, plural trens.   I don't know exactly what the Spanish equivalent is, but it's very similar.   The European Portuguese equivalent is comboio, a word which the porter at a Spanish frontier railway station deliberately used to warn me of danger (the platforms are not raised as in England, so it's easy to stray). 2.28.95.203 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Postpositive adjective plural possessives.
Which is proper? or something else?Naraht (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Two different State Attorneys General's offices are involved in the prosecution
 * Two different State Attorneys' General offices are involved in the prosecution
 * Neither. That source recommends constructing the sentence using the "of" construction to avoid awkward possessive.  "The offices of two different Attorneys General" in American English and "The offices of two different attorney-generals" in British English, according to that source.  -- Jayron 32 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not say "the Attorney General's offices of two different states" and avoid the silly plural altogether? --76.69.47.228 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be wrong. Adjectives don't take possessive forms, nouns do. -- Jayron 32 01:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This ain't French. The noun is "Attorney General". --76.69.47.228 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is English. The word "General" is a postpositive adjective.  It is not part of the noun.  The noun is "Attorney", and "General" is a modifier of it.  -- Jayron 32 12:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Then explain why there is also a hyphenated spelling. (2) Doesn't matter anyway. The 's ending is a clitic that can be applied to a whole phrase. Classic example: "the King of England's nose". --76.69.47.228 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can do anything you want in colloquial speech. Any style guide will recommended using the "of" construction to avoid awkward possessives like that.  "The nose of the King of England" is the preferred construction.-- Jayron 32 21:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That source is some years old.  This  suggests the U K has come into line with other countries.   In Scotland there is an office known as the "procurator fiscal", which pluralises in the same way.   The rephrasing to avoid awkwardness is equally valid there. 2.28.95.203 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Attorneys general has been the British plural at least since Shakespeare wrote: " Call in the letters patents that he hath By his attourneies generall to sue His liuery." in 1597 (Richard II) (though they were "attournez generals" in 1292). The OED has just one cite for the alternative plural, and only for the capitalised hyphenated form "Attorney-Generals".  They might be more permissive when they update the entry for the third edition.   Dbfi<i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  20:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)