Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 May 29

= May 29 =

Translation from Japanese to English
''それはしらん. 天皇の内心ですし なぜ日本の象徴の立場を忘れて英語を話すような遜った態度を取ったのかなど知る由もなし'' déhanchements (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "That's it. It is the Tenno's inner heart, and there is no reason why I forgot the position of the symbol of Japan and took a humble attitude like speaking English." Google translate is your friend. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Google Translate gave me a slightly different spoof on it and is infamous for giving inaccurate translations. déhanchements (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

He or him
I've changed the wording in The Thief of Bagdad (1924 film) to avoid the issue, but which is correct: "Another of the princess's slaves foretells that she will marry he/him who first touches a rose-tree in her garden." "him who" sounds awful to my ear. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the context of the original sources makes it clear that the reference is to a male, then why not say "a man"? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or 'the one'? --CiaPan (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s him in this case. It helps to consider the sentence without the subclause (or to be a native German speaker, where all this grammar crap is still alive and kickin’): Another of the princess's slaves foretells that she will marry he/him. Cheers ✦  hugarheimur 08:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's the grating "him who...": "marry" is a transitive verb and requires an object ("him"). I would prefer, though, to follow 's suggestion; although as it's a specific male person (the first to...), I'd use "the man who...". Bazza (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Clarityfiend -- look at it this way: The choice between "he" and "him" depends on the pronoun's role in the main clause (in this case, object of the verb), while the choice between "who" and "whom" depends on its role in the subordinate clause (in this case, subject of the verb).  So there's nothing actually inconsistent in "him who"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's a quote from a source, use it as-is. If it's Wikipedia trying to explain, keep it simple as per Cullen328. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I realize this is a different situation, but I am reminded of the "whoever/whomever" controversy in sentences like "The prize will be awarded to whoever crosses the finish line first." Many people would say "whomever". Jmar67 (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Easily gotten around: "The runner crossing the line first will be awarded the prize." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The question is not how to rewrite the sentence to make it flow better. The question is which one of two words is correct in the original sentence. Answers which are proposing rewrites are not responsive to the question. CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I stated at the very beginning "I've changed the wording ... to avoid the issue". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you define "pedantic dogmatism", ? You seem good at it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I support . He makes a very good point. I believe the answer to the original question is “... he who first touches ...” Dolphin ( t ) 10:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Three users above (I being one of them) have answered the question as asked, with "him" being the unanimous answer for the reason shown. Ironically, 's contribution didn't give an answer to the question. As for the other responses, I'm not aware of any rules stating that information other than a direct answer must not be given. Sometimes this extra stuff can be helpful to the OP or others, sometimes it can be ignored. Bazza (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that my complaining about off topic replies while not actually providing an answer was inappropriate, and I apologize for that. I found it surprising to see responses suggesting rewriting when the OP made it clear that they had in fact already rewritten the sentence, and were asking a specific grammatical question about the original sentence. That made the suggestions to rewrite it (differently than they had already done?) seem rather egregiously tangential to me. I didn't have time at that moment to write anything longer, and I should have remained quiet rather than firing off a snippy jab. Sorry. CodeTalker (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rewriting is often the best solution to correct but awkward phrasing ("to him who") or even correct but debatable phrasing ("to whoever crosses"), but we all are curious about what is right if we don't. Jmar67 (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually my comment above is related to the original question. What if the rewrite had been "that she will marry whoever first touches"? Jmar67 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Marry" still requires an object, and suggests that "whomever" would fill that role, although it does mark it as "literary, formal". Being a bit pedantic grammar-wise, it would be my choice. Bazza (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxford is saying that the use of "whomever" as an object is "literary, formal", implying the less formal "to whoever they like" is also acceptable. But in the case of "marry whoever touches", "whoever" is the subject of "touches" and the only possibility. Jmar67 (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So what is the object of "marry" in "marry who(m)ever touches"? Bazza (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The object of marry is the whole clause "whoever touches ...". Within that clause, however, whoever is the subject of touches, so whoever rather than whomever is what is needed. Deor (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So should the final line of Shakespeare's epitaph read "Cursed be HIM that moves my bones"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The verb "be" does not take an object. The correct case is nominative ("He"). He got it right. Jmar67 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Chinese in Japanese
Why are have been many Chinese in Japanese? Why Korean contain no Chinese?Hmht45tgree3d (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Why Japanese can be written like 姉が坂田和美、妹が坂田愛（ともに元・日本生命）という卓球3姉妹の2女, but Korean not 悠久한 歷史와 傳統에 빛나는 우리 大韓國民은 3·1 運動으, instead, why Korean contain no Chinese and written as 데서는 일상 생활에서 한자를 완전히 폐지하고, 한글, why Japanese can't written without Chinese as ギニアニーイュンド・デマィヤ・プラーシュ、ラージャスターン とはまデった? Hmht45tgree3d (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmht45tgree3d -- In the middle ages, women traditionally wrote Japanese in kana syllabary only (without Chinese-origin kanji), and some relics of early (ca. 1970s) computerization in Japan reportedly use kana-only writing for certain limited utilitarian purposes. But mixed (kana + kanji) writing of Japanese has been standard for a while.
 * In Korea, some Chinese characters used to be sprinkled amidst the hangul syllabary symbols, but this has been diminishing for a while. Chinese characters are now banned in the writing of the Korean language in North Korea, while in South Korea they now have a limited role that's more decorative than truly functional... AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Korean has word spacing. Reading a text fully Japanese Kana, on the other hand, is very tedious. Japanese has no word spacing. Kanji are inserted content words used to visually aid the reader. It also saves a lot of space because Japanese assigned Kanji to native Japanese words, which are longer. Obviously, you can work around those things and have reforms, but some people also have cultural ties to the system they currently have. Moreover, Korea had a lower literacy rate than Japan, so King Sejong felt more inclied to invent Hangeul. --2001:16B8:312C:A300:DC67:4DD3:B1EF:6B98 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Hmht45tgree3d, see Hangul and Hanja 93.142.85.188 (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)