Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

April 23

Verify validity of an edit to Chinese characters?

Resolved

If someone could take a look at this edit to some Chinese characters and check that it is legitimate, I would be grateful. (Not watching, please ping.) --JBL (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Chinese. (Just Japanese, poorly.) But it looks to me like an accurate change from simplified to traditional (pre-simplification) characters. I believe that simplified characters are as barbaric to people used to traditional characters as traditional characters are rebarbative to people used to simplified characters; so my first (and uneducated) impression is that the edit was neither an improvement nor a degradation. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel B. Lewis: Looks legitimate to me. As Hoary said, just changing simplified to traditional characters (the linked articles about the Chinese mathematicians in question give both). I personally prefer traditional characters and believe they are more suitable for anything pre-1949, but others may disagree. —Kusma (t·c) 20:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! --JBL (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this change! It's probably politically motivated. Changing one script to another is not an improvement of the article and is even forbidden on the Chinese Wikipedia. It also doesn't do justice to the vast number of people who learn about the mathematician and his principle in simplified characters. The best way is to solve this is to add both scripts. --2001:16B8:2ED5:8800:CDE9:5B2:62D3:425F (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We have the template {{lang-zh}} which deals perfectly with such situations.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection: there are three hanzi compounds here. I see no reason to include either of the first two (in either traditional or simplified form): if people want to know what the hanzi are for either of these two people, they can click on the links to the articles about them and find the hanzi there. As for the third compound, there is a good reason to supply the hanzi, and (as the IP suggests) it seems a good idea to do so with both versions. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to act on this when I found that Lüboslóv Yęzýkin had beaten me to it. Thank you, Lüboslóv! -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osterwasser

Resolved

– 20:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The caption in German for this illustration:[1] seems to translate as "The walk to the Easter water", which doesn't make sense unless there is a cultural reference that eludes me. Could there be another translation for: "Der Gang nach dem Osterwasser"? The illustration does depict walking and water and a springtime motif. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

de:Osterwasser_(Brauchtum) also has some info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both! Interesting. They even reference the same illustration. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.s: note that guy in the picture is obviously a scoundrel (smoking a ~~cigarette~~ pipe, with the bowl turned sideways for some odd reason); he's leering at the young maiden (i.e. virgin) and knows that she isn't supposed to interact with anybody while performing her sacred task. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Modified:17:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The dodgy moustache is a giveaway... Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

“Rape” in Japanese

Unless I’m mistaken, the most common word for rape in Japanese seems to be “reipu” which obviously sounds borrowed from the English word.

Does this mean that *concept* of rape in Japan does not predate their interaction with European peoples, or did they have an older word for rape that is no longer commonly used?—69.121.235.11 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kittredge Cherry, the basic older word for "rape" was 強姦 (see Wiktionary), which was disliked by many, for containing the semi-infamous "three women" character 姦 (which traditionally had overwhelmingly negative meanings), and possibly for other reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Affection / Affectation

In this edit an IP editor changed affection -> affectation except it is from a direct quote, and confirmed the source says affection (in multiple published versions). Is there a grammatical error in the original source or is it correct? -- GreenC 14:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "affection" seems peculiar, but if it's what the guy said, then this looks like a good time to insert a "[sic]". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Affection means "you care about others." Affectation means "pretense". The word affection works just fine, if the author is indicating that the person is aloof or stand-off-ish or self-centered. I don't see it as a [sic] situation, they may very well have meant affection. --Jayron 32 14:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it should be quoted verbatim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those "direct quotes" are nothing of the kind - they are all fragments of text. To find the "verbatim" quotes you need to use "affectation" rather than "affection" in the search parameters. This gives you [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. To clinch it there's a preview of the original book at [10], where the word appears on page 2. 2A00:23C0:4E82:F801:ACFF:AF35:189:C1F0 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, I've restored "affectation". Deor (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Multiple authors in published books/papers quote Ward with affection yet the original source is "affectation". Perhaps one influential source misquoted Ward and this lead to others copying the mistake (including Wikipedia). Fortunately we can stop the train of error unlike the other static sources which remain uncorrected forever. -- GreenC 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

..confirmed it is affectation in the first edition 1958 and in an edition from 1985, no changes across editions unless it occurred later than 1985 which seems unlikely. -- GreenC 20:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very. "Affectation" fits the context, "affection" does not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Affection fits the archetype of a bloke quite well actually. Probably another reason the error propagated. -- GreenC 01:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret "affection" to mean caring, as per what Jayron said. Is it true that the stereotypical bloke cares about no one? Like, not even his own mother? Whereas, "affectation" essentially means "phony", and it certainly makes sense that a bloke wouldn't like phonies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well reading Ward's quote it's not at all flattering and give the picture of a self-centered individual not known for being 'caring' about others. He "feels no impulse to work" (layabout). He "swears hard and constantly" (inconsiderate). He "gambles heavily" and "drinks deeply" (drunken gambler). He is the "world's best confidence man" (liar and cheater). He has no interest in intellectual or religious pursuits (uneducated to a fault). He is a "great 'knocker' of smitten people" (cruel). He is "a 'scab'". He is a "rolling stone" (drifter). -- GreenC 15:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or "lowlife". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Latin translation

I've encountered the following phrase in a Presbyterian ecclesiastical text from 1807, but I'm not sure that it's transcribed correctly (I'm looking at a manuscript), and Google produces more gibberish than I'd expect if it were transcribed accurately.

An notæ dentur veræ ecclesiæ et quæ sunt?

(1) Is this likely to be good Latin? (2) What does it mean? Google renders it Is known church are true and which are not?, which I suppose could mean "Is it known which churches are true and which are not?", but rendering dentur as are doesn't seem to make much sense (what little I remember of schoolboy Latin includes sum and sunt for forms of is/are, but nothing close to dentur, and wiktionary:dentur gives it as a completely different word), so this in particular may be a transcription error. Also, Google produces different results if you switch æ to ae, so again I'm unsure whether it's a Google error or a transcription error. Finally, I've found bits of the original 90-page manuscript online (excerpts were printed in the late 19th century), but a Google search for this phrase finds nothing; another thing making me wonder if I made a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dentur is a passive subjunctive verb form meaning roughly "they may be given". (The exact meaning of a subjunctive verb depends on the construction in which it occurs.) Something about whether true churches are known and which ones they are, though I can't really figure out how dentur fits into the sentence... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that particular phrase on Google, but I see a Theologia dogmatico-polemica by Carlo Sardagni (who appears to have been Catholic, so it's not the same work as yours), which raises various questions like "An dentur notae verae Christi ecclesiae, et an illae sint sincera praedicatio verbi Dei, et legitimius sacramentorum usus?" In that case it means (roughly...this is probably too literal) "Whether signs of the true church of Christ are given, and whether they are sincere preaching of the word of God, and legitimate uses of the sacraments?" The verbs are subjunctive because they have to be after "an" ("whether"). Similarly, your phrase looks like it should mean "Whether signs of the true church are given, and what are they?" "Dentur" is being used impersonally, it might be more natural to simply say "whether there are" in English. I assume this goes back to Reformation authors trying to figure out how to tell whether any particular church was the true church, but AnonMoos could probably speak to that better than I could. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A presbytery instructs a seminarian to write a Latin discussion on this topic in order to develop his ecclesiology and his Latin skills (I got this from a scan of the presbytery's minutes), so this particular situation wouldn't appear online unless the presbytery's documents were online. And thank you for the grammatical discussion, which is what I was seeking; though Adam, I'm a little confused by your use of "are". Does Latin subjunctive not translate easily into English, i.e. is "are given" better than "be given"? Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latin uses the subjunctive much more frequently than modern English. Here "an" is an indirect question in a subordinate clause, I suppose with an implied finite verb (e.g. "I ask whether..."), so the subjunctive is required. We could say "whether it be" in English but that sounds pretty archaic. Hamlet for example says "whether it be bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple" - but he also says "whether 'tis nobler in the mind" etc, so even back then it was starting to disappear. We just don't use the subjunctive very much in English anymore, so a lot of Latin subjunctives sound more natural with the indicative in English.

By the way, another interesting grammatical thing here is that "an" is actually the second half of a classical construction, "utrum...an" ("whether...or") - it's actually the "utrum" part that means "whether". In neo-Latin it's common to just use "an" alone as a question. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop -- Dentur as marker of an existential clause makes sense (analogous to German es gibt), thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can be these two types of adjective groups distinguished terminologically?

I found this question on stalkexchange and I'd like to know what is the answer for this (since there's no answer there for that question). "How can be these two types of adjective groups distinguished terminologically? In adjectives there are two main groups: First Group: adjectives that their 3 grades (base, comparative and superlative) are changed whether regularly (nice > nicer > nicest) or irregularly (good > better > best). Second group: adjectives that their 3 grades, are changed by adding "more" or "most" (e.g. "more expensive" or "most expensive" rather than expensivier or expensiviest). Then my question is how these two groups are distinguished terminologically? or in other words what are the terms for each of these two groups? Based on some research, the terms "synthetic adjectives" (=in the first group) and "analytic adjectives" (in the second group) refer only to the comparative degree rather than to the all 3 grades together (positive, comparative and superlative adjectives). Isn't it?" 93.126.116.89 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the three "grades" are more often called "degrees of comparison". Second, there doesn't have to be any established single words to describe each of the two groups. If asked to coin phrases, I would come up with "adjectives taking inflectional comparison" vs. "adjectives taking syntactic comparison"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or comparisons made by affix vs. comparisons made by syntax. --Jayron 32 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly suppletive. Bazza (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few suppletive comparisons, such as "good/better" and "bad/worse". That term does not cover either type of regular comparison... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about adjectives that inflect for comparison and those that do not inflect for comparison? The vast majority of those that inflect also have periphrastic equivalents ("purest", but also "most pure"); only a very few sound odd (?"more far", ?"more mad"). NB periphrasis is used for any adjective when in a particular kind of construction: "She is more mad than inspired" (not *"She is madder than inspired"). -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If English is not mey first language how can I get a writing help?

I really need help with writing as English is not my native language. Can you advise me something?

I think the best help for writing in any language is reading. Read newspapers, magazines, books. The more, the better. —Stephen (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to check your English for correctness, try language exchange sites and apps. My personal preference is hinative. Шурбур (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of the active volunteers at the Guild of Copy Editors might be willing to assist you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of cource the best way would be to exchange emails or letters with native speakers, but if you need it immidiately and you don't have time to practise you may use one of the writing servises. There are a lot of them now available, I know that this one is pretty trustfull: https://www.a-writer.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveinindlness (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Quelccaya

Some claim it means "snow plain". But I couldn't find a proof for this. This dictionary contains no words which may sound and mean something close to that (I searched at least for "nieve" and "nevad*").--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk)

That name sounds like it would be a native name transliterated into Spanish orthography. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether that's going to help, but the quechua wikipedia article on the Quelccaya Ice Cap is qu:Qillqaya_Rit'ipampa. "Snow" is qu:Rit'i, so "snow plain" appears to be the translation of Rit'ipampa, not Qillqaya/Quelccaya. And qu:Qillqay would be Writing, but obviously I have no idea whether there is a connection and what that might be... --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrongfilter: Thanks! The idea that there might be an article in Quechua didn't even come to my mind! Before posting my question I had already seen rit'i, pampa, qillqay in the dictionary, but they all together didn't make any sense. Now at least I'm sure what part of the name actually means "snow plain". The first part may be something figurative or not Quechua at all. It seems I have to investigate it myself.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk)

Translation or explanation, please

Hello, I'm a french speaking contributor and I found the phrase «They are not mounted in one sleeve» in the entry about the BL 4 inch Mk IX naval gun. What does this mean?
Thank you. Dhatier (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explanation of "sleeve" that I found. I suppose the idea is that with each gun independently movable they required a lot of crew working in a small space to operate them. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this makes sense. Thank you. Dhatier (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

Korean language

When North Korea and South Korea fielded a combined ice hockey team for the Winter Olympics, I remember there being some comment on the news about language difficulties, and the need for separate translators from English to North / South Korean. However, on the news today there were shots of the presidents of North Korea and South Korea apparently conversing without any translators present. Can these two men understand each other without any problems? 86.191.58.157 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See North–South differences in the Korean language. The differences are overall pretty slight and the two presidents shouldn't have any more difficulty communicating than Donald Trump and Theresa May would. For the hockey team specifically, as noted in our article, the problem was mostly due to vocabulary, since the South has borrowed terminology from English while the North has created its own Korean hockey terms. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have just been reminded now of a note that I left on that article's talk page some while ago. I think the problem still exists. While the article does go into detail about specific topics, it is hard to get a general idea of how easily the average North Korean can converse with the average South Korean -- whether it is 80%, or 90% or 99% intelligibility, for example. I know these things can be hard to quantify, but at the moment the Intro is rather useless in this respect, in my opinion. 86.191.58.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuate

Is "perpetuate" a negative word? Can I say "This organization is committed to perpetuating the glory of Indian-culture music? 2601:147:200:664B:F820:B060:CE00:F7F0 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as neither negative nor positive in any automatic way. Your proposed usage seems fine to me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual, which means never-ending, has an interesting history.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Are there non-gradable adjectives?

Are there non-gradable adjectives (positive, comparative and superlative)? I've seen that up and down are such adjectives. Is that correct? are there another ones?93.126.116.89 (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fucking" immediately came to mind.

Down can kinda be graded with "more down," "most down." That doesn't work with "up" or "fucking." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional term for such adjectives is "incomparable", even though I don't see it mentioned at comparison (grammar) or in a Wikipedia article of its own. ("Uncomparable" is also used and avoids confusion with the principal meaning of "incomparable".) However, whether they really exist is open to debate. Prescriptivists like to complain when people say things like "more unique", but the fact is that they do. (As to "up", I suggest that if you're feeling a bit depressed today, maybe your mood will tomorrow be more up.) And if you can't think of a sentence where you'd use "more" with a certain adjective, maybe that's just a failure of your imagination. Here's one article discussing the point. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other kinds of non-gradable adjectives. Example: "sixth". And there are many adjectives that are gradable when used in one or more senses but are not gradable when used in one or more other senses: for example, "phonetic"; the spelling of German is more phonetic than that of English, but the notation "/ˈɪŋlᵻʃ/" is written in phonetic script, not a *"very phonetic script". -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The classic example is "pregnant", as in, you can't be a little bit. The British Council offers "married" and "wooden" as its examples of non-gradable adjectives [12], though you could always be a smart alek and criticise the actor's rather wooden performance. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"very pregnant" is not uncommon, meaning that the pregnancy is well advanced. 86.191.58.157 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like a joke. When you're "very" pregnant, you are actually no more pregnant than you were the day of conception. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is by no means always meant as a joke. 86.191.58.157 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Adjective#Comparison (next-to-last paragraph) and Comparison (grammar)#Absolute adjectives. Loraof (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's at the latter link is well intended and not far off the mark; but as it stands, it's odd (as well as unsourced for two years). Quote: Many prescriptive grammars and style guides include adjectives for inherently superlative qualities to be ungradable. Uh, but "superlative" implies gradability (or anyway does so to me). I do realize that many prescriptive grammars are potty, but there (usually) are limits to their pottiness. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does a chamber pot have to do with grammar? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 30