Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 12

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 12

Word choice for a section of an article of a Japanese celebrity

This is really more a question for an article, so here:

Hamasaki was initially a good student, earning good grades in junior high school. Eventually, she lost faith in the curriculum, thinking that the subjects taught were of no use to her. Her grades dropped as she refused to put her mind to her studies. While living in Tokyo, she attempted to further her studies at Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts, but dropped out in the first year. Hamasaki, without a job and school, spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club.

So I was wondering... The word "dropped" is used twice: first when Hamasaki's grades tank, and second when she actually says adios to her high school. Is there a way we can change this? I tried to think of something, but the only two things I came up with were, "Her grades suffered" or somehow rewrite it so that it says her grades became "inadequate" instead... I do think the second one would not make much sense because it said she was a good student in middle school. It's been there for months now, even after the article made FA. ★Dasani★ 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure there's any reason to change the wording at all. If you want to do that, though, a couple of suggestions: "As her interest in her studies waned, her grades suffered accordingly." Or simply, "She no longer put her mind to her studies" -- the part about dropping grades may be superfluous. But really, the word "dropped" is being used in a different contexts; I don't think there's any risk of tautology. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's good style to avoid using the same word with two different meanings close together (except for common function-words like "that", of course). If I was making no other change, I'd change "dropped" to "fell" or "worsened". --Anonymous, 06:27 UTC, January 12,2009.

I'd agree with that, but it's important to note two things, I think. Firstly, that this is a verb and a compound verb ('dropped' vs. 'dropped out'), and secondly, that the words are far enough apart, in my opinion, not to sound like repetition.--KageTora (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Far enough that the repetition is not a style problem, but still near enough for possible confusion. I'm reminded of experiments in which hearing an associated word influences the subject's choice between homonyms: that is, if you hear "water" mentioned and soon afterward hear "drop" without enough context to make the sense clear, you're more likely to think of a drop of fluid than of a fall or decline. (I first heard of this when it was used to test whether backward Satanic messages in hard rock can corrupt the innocent listener; the answer was no, or so THEY want me to think.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you think there's any risk of confusion here? I would consider that very unlikely. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the reader is apt to be briefly confused by the conflicting uses of the same word – before re-reading, finding that there is no ambiguity, and perhaps wondering why something didn't seem right. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No Question

Please have a look at this project: [1]. It could be a subsidiary of WP Ref Desk. You might be interested in cooperating. --Omidinist (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the same link, but with the title shown.

Forvo: the pronunciation guide. All the words in the world pronounced by native speakers

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone may wish to start an article called Forvo. I have added it to my watchlist. See [2].

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraits du corps

On the page Bernard Noël, did I translate extraits du corps correctly (Essence of the body)? My French is pretty much limited to my knowledge of Spanish. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact. But there is an ambiguity in the original, which could refer to extracts from a literal body, or extracts from a literary body. See discussion here and here. It is difficult to maintain precisely this ambiguity in translation. One meaning is "body extracts", the other is something like "excerpts from the body of text [or from the oeuvre]".

• Cuts from the Corpus!

Another way is choose one element that fits more with the first meaning, and one that fits more with the other:

• Excerpts from the Body
• Excisions from the Text
• Amputations from the Anthology!

I see that some works here and there do offer a drab provisional translation, but on the assumption that the wording is singular: Extrait du corps, "Body Extract".

Note also that extraits can be read as the past participle (m, plural) of the verb extraire, "to extract". So these are also possible:

• Pulled from the Text
• Drawn from the Discourse!

Meh.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Faced with this, I might suggest 'Extraits du corps (the title is a play on words, meaning either things cut from a literal "body" or excised from a "body of text").' - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Colon instead of comma??

In Hip dysplasia (human) There was an edit I'd like help sorting out. The editor changed a comma into a colon:

Hip dysplasia is considered to be a multifactorial condition: that means that several factors are involved in causing the condition to manifest.

(The one after "condition".) I checked through Colon (punctuation) and still think a comma should go here. Is this one of those strange BE/AE differences?--Lisa4edit (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To "I .. still think a comma should go there": NO, NO, a thousand times NO! A comma would turn it into a dreaded run-on sentence. A full stop (period) or a semi-colon would be appropriate. Or even a dash. Or even a conjunction such as "and". But never a comma. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While the girls fan Jack with a palm frond and bring him a new mai-tai, I'll mention that the colon in that sentence the way it is is not really wrong, it just sucks. A colon in that sort of position wants to introduce explanatory matter and doesn't take well to unsolicited help. The "that means that" gilds the lily; if you must have a colon, better would be "Hip dysplasia is considered to be a multifactorial condition: several factors are involved in causing the condition to manifest." --Milkbreath (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gilding the lily" ? I prefer "putting lipstick on a pig", at least when I have nothing better to do. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have naked nubile Nubians fanning me, but I'll take whatever I can get.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Or "Hip displaysia is considered (citation here or else someone is going to edit in 'Who?') a mutlifactorial condition which may include: X, Y, and Z." Milkbreath is right, the language in the OP is very weak. One does not need to explain what a multifactorial condition is, "multi" and "factor" are pretty easy to draw from the context. Livewireo (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Milkbreath. Keep the colon and ditch the "that means that". —Angr 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't advise you to remove a colon, as that would be medical advice. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Stu. It would be a matter of extraits du corps (see preceding section).

Let's take another look at the sentence, abridged and with a neutral "/" at the crucial point:

Hip dysplasia is considered to be a multifactorial condition / that means that ...

As no one has so far pointed out, the role of the first that is uncertain. It could be a relative pronoun that is better replaced by a which (since it is non-restrictive and since it has the entire preceding clause as its referent):

Hip dysplasia is considered to be a multifactorial condition / which means that ...

With such a which, a comma is appropriate:

Hip dysplasia is considered to be a multifactorial condition, which [or less happily that] means that ...

On the other hand, if the first that is construed as a simple demonstrative pronoun, a comma is not standard. You'd normally want a semicolon, with the present wording (or a full stop, though I don't much like JackofOz's suggestion of a dash, here). A colon is defensible, even if the wording is unchanged. I am a stern critic of Chicago Manual of Style, but Chicago is in line with other authorities concerning the colon:

6.63 Use of the colon

A colon introduces an element or a series of elements illustrating or amplifying what has preceded the colon. Between independent clauses it functions much like a semicolon, though more strongly emphasizing sequence. ...

And this Chicago example is perhaps relevant to our case:

They even relied on a chronological analogy: just as the Year II had overshadowed 1789, so the October Revolution had eclipsed that of February.

Here what follows the colon amplifies what precedes. That is also the intention in our case, but with redundant that means that; so I agree with MB and Angr. Finally, most of the sentence is in fact redundant. I don't like that use of manifest, and in fact the second part adds nothing to the first. I would recast the dysplastic and hypertrophied original like this:

Several factors contribute to hip dysplasia.

As for gilding the lily, Shakespeare and I prefer to say painting the lily:

Therefore, to be possess'd with double pomp,
To guard a title that was rich before,
To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.
  –King John, 4ii

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Careful with that petard, sir. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Yes MB, I was already aware of what you imply. But it amuses me so to play.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The misquotation about the lily is mentioned at List of misquotations, which "is a candidate to be copied to Wikiquote using the Transwiki process." -- Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Better to gild a lily than geld an orchid... —Angr 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, Angr. A "little test" of our Greek?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a misquotation if people use it believing they're quoting from Shakespeare. But if they use it simply because it's become a standard expression (whatever its origins; they may have no idea, and they may care even less, that its original form was coined by the Bard), then it's just a part of the rich tapestry that helps to make our otherwise drab and depressing lives that little bit more colourful. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, JoO. Myself, I simply pointed out what Shakespeare and I prefer to say.

Nature neuer set forth the earth in so rich tapistry, as diuers Poets haue done.
  – An Apologie for Poetrie, Sir Philip Sidney, 1598

We might as well improve the punch with spices, while we're here. All instructive; sometimes delightful.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)