Language desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 10 >

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.

August 9

That … and which

In a recent post on the Humanities desk, I wrote:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and moreover defies all logic and reason.

I wasn’t entirely happy about it, as the clause after the comma sounded incomplete. But the imperative of the moment called, so I saved it. But I keep coming back to it. When I was drafting my post, my first instinct was to use 'which' after 'and':

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and which moreover defies all logic and reason.

But then, I thought, I can't use 'that' in the first clause but 'which' in the second. Not sure why, but it seems to violate some rule about parallel constructions.

But I couldn't write:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and that moreover defies all logic and reason.

because there's something about 'and that' that just feels unnatural to me, while 'and which' does not.

But I couldn't have 'which' in both clauses either:

They still have room in their lives to believe something which nobody could ever prove – this already fails my sound-good test, regardless of what comes later.

I seem to have exhausted all the possibilities: which-which, that-that, which-that, that-which.

Seems a better approach would be to write:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and moreover something that defies all logic and reason.

Is this my only pedant-safe option, or is there another, shorter way? -- (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find commas to be troubling in speech and writing. I would say this phrase by deleting all commas. Thus: "Some people defy logic and my powers of reason by accepting something they could never prove." schyler (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you may have misinterpreted the meaning of the sentence, Schyler. Here's the full context. It's not people that defy logic and reason, it's the claimed occurrence of transubstantiation that I was talking about. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about ditching "that" and thus avoiding the conflict(?) with "which": They still have room in their lives to believe something nobody could ever prove, and which moreover defies all logic and reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, the only improvement to your original sentence I would make is to remove the comma before "and". Otherwise, it sounds perfectly fine to me with a single that introducing two clauses joined by and. +An gr 10:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to do this, I would write:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, something that defies all logic and reason.

Parallelism is your friend! -- it makes the meaning clear. But what you should really worry about is not this minor point, but rather "room in their lives to believe", which is seriously bad writing (sorry!). Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about parallelism. But sez hoo that expression is seriously bad writing? And why? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in what sense does a belief take up room in a life? How much room does it take up? It might be reasonable to say that activities take up room, in a metaphorical way, but beliefs? Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the full context, you’ll see I was talking about scientists, mathematicians and other left-brain people, for whom reason and logic are paramount (nothing wrong with that) – but some of whom nevertheless accommodate a belief in something that their reason and logic would tell them is absurd. That’s what I meant by having “room in their lives” for such beliefs. Of course it’s metaphorical, in the same way that “There is no place in my world view for a belief in the Easter Bunny” is metaphorical. I welcome any and all feedback on my writing, but in this case I stand by my choice of words. Thank you. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, what sounds best to my (American) ear among which-which, that-that, which-that, and that-which is that-which. Or go for one of the options that repeats "something". Both are totally clear, and that-which doesn't violate any parallelism rules AFAIK. Even if it did, those stylistic rules are rules only of thumb, which can be disregarded if doing so is in the interest of clarity, flow, or beauty. --Atemperman (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atemperman. I'd be rather loath to mix my thats and whiches in mixed company. Which film did you dislike less: the one that went for 5 hours, or the one which had the music playing continuously? - I wouldn't be caught dead writing something as blatant as that, for example. I doubt you'd find any general stylistic support for mixing thats and whiches, but maybe it could be got away with in some cases. In my case above I don't see the need to go to such lengths, as there are more elegant solutions available, such as the repetition of 'something'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's the right thing to do: "I married the girl that I loved, which was a big mistake". "Which" is necessary here because the mistake was marrying -- using "that" would imply that the mistake was the girl. Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it would create a comma splice into the bargain. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come late to the party. I think the reason you don't like the original text is that the "that" is followed, first, by an agent ("nobody") and, later, by a verb ("defies"). It is the fact that the "that" is not followed by the same type of word that creates the disconcerting effect. In addition, to me, your comma before the "and" gives the impression that what is going to follow will have the original "they" as the subject, which means the singular verb form ("defies") that follows has a jarring note.

For my part, I would certainly have needed to repeat the "that" to give "something that nobody can prove and that, moreover, defies all logic". But I might also have written "something that is unprovable and defies all logic" - but even then I find that I'd like to invert this ("something that defies all logic and is unprovable") which suggests to me that all this is simply in the rhythm. (I fear I'm making no sense at all now. So I'll stop.) 86.135.25.224 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya

What is the etymology of combie? The quotation is from the first line of the song Land Down Under by Men At Work.199.126.224.156 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combie comes from German Kombi, which is an abbreviation for the horribly clumsy "Kombinationskraftwagen" (meaning "combination vehicle", because the things are essentially a combination of people-carrying sedan and cargo-carrying truck). How the word ended up in Aussie slang I don't know - maybe due to the popularity of the VW Bully? -- Ferkelparade π 08:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Der Bulli ist aber kein Kombi :P Rimush (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. A Kombi is what's called a station wagon in American English and estate car in British English. +An gr 10:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but some versions of the Bulli were marketed under the name "Kombi" internationally (I think those built in Brazil). As far as I know, a combie (as opposed to a Kombi) is a van/minivan, not a station wagon -- Ferkelparade π 11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The word "kombi" is widespread in Slovene, and it means precisely a van/minivan, and the underlying notion is that the back space is either open or has benches for passengers. If you asked a kid here to draw one, they'd probably sketch a caricature of the VW Bully :) On the other hand, a "kombi" for us is decisively not the same as a station wagon. Just thought I'd throw that out, might interest someone. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions for you, OP. What is the connection between the title of this thread - "Ya" - and the content of the question? What is "Ya" anyway? Is it some reference to the German "ja", meaning "yes"? If so, what is the relevance of that to the question? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian youths famously arrive in London, buy a clapped-out VW Kombi (widely called a "Camper" in the UK[1]) and drive round Europe in it; finally selling it to newly arrived Ozzies before leaving for home[2]. Perhaps this is relevant to the words of the song? Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no "ya" in the song lyrics. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, Alansplodge is having a crack at the OP's question there, not yours. An indentation issue I fear. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK so what's the word immediately before Combi in that line? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fried-out". +An gr 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "clapped-out" before I read "fried-out" - I suspect that they mean the same thing though; well-worn mechanically. Also, apologies for the clumsy indentation. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zh:官商勾結

Could anyone please tell me what 官商勾結 is in English? I'm doing a Wikinews article. It means that the government is on the businessmen's side and do what they can to help them, even though it means reduced privileges for their people etc. Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 10:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In one word, the closest I can get is collusion or nepotism. Is that what you want...? I kind of know what it means, but it's hard to translate concisely. sonia ♫ 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of collusion, but the CALD defines it as 'agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone', which sounds a bit nastier than it's supposed to be. :) Nepotism? Probably not, because it refers to family members, which is suitable for Donald Tsang's fluorescent light bulb controversy but not for the article concerned. Also, the ref is here. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cynic would say the phenomenon of the government being on the side of the corporations against the ordinary people is simply called "business as usual". +An gr 11:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>And, to anyone else reading this, 官商勾結 is kind of similar to the situation after the death of Emperor Xuan of Han and before the Wangs took over. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)Gah, can't read traditional. :P I'm not sure how much better I would be able to word it than "favouritism toward corporate bodies", to be honest. sonia ♫ 11:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has any idea, I guess I'll go with yours, 'favouritism toward corporate bodies', which is a lot better than any other suggestion. Thanks. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the parties involved are understood from the context, "collusion" will be a perfectly good translation. --71.185.169.212 (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it translated as "collusion between business and government". 121.72.194.59 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Curb or kerb?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-10914836

In the above 'news' article, the word kerb is used. Another American English/Britain English spelling difference reveals itself, as Americans spell it curb. Does wikipedia have a list of these kind of different spellings?

Thank you for your help, The Reader who Writes (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See American and British English spelling differences. +An gr 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Given that a common pastime on Wikpedia is quibbling and sniping about such differences, we have several such articles:

Hope that helps. -- 174.24.200.206 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five articles. Isn't that just great? Rimush (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: British English has both spellings for both noun and verb. "Kerb" is used exclusively for road edges, and "curb" for all other senses of restraint. Dbfirs 08:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid

Is the "O" in Ovid pronounced like the short "o" in oxen ... or the long "o" in open ... or either ... or both? I always thought (perhaps assumed?) that it was the former. I recently went to a lecture in which it was pronounced as the latter, which startled me. At first, I thought the speaker not to be knowledgeable on the issue. Then I thought that perhaps I was the one lacking knowledge on this issue. Any thoughts? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've always heard it pronounced with the "short O" (in John C. Wells's terms, the LOT vowel), but perhaps the "long O" (the GOAT vowel) is an acceptable alternative. +An gr 16:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard both. I suppose the original Latin way was probably more like the "long O", but without the diphthong that exists in that vowel in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted the original question, this thought later dawned on me. When his name is written as Ovid, I have only heard it pronounced with the short "o" (of oxen). But, when his full name is written as Ovidius, then I have heard it pronounced with the long "o" (of open). (64.252.34.115 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"Ovid" isn't in the OED, but for "Ovidian", they have /o'vɪdiən/ (GOAT vowel) as the only pronunciation for American English, and as primary pronunciation for British English, with /ɒ'vɪdiən/ (LOT vowel) as the secondary. The only time I think I've ever heard his name spoken aloud was by my oboe teacher in high school, who said it with the GOAT vowel. She is clearly as authoritative a source as the OED. --Atemperman (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard the name pronounced with a short "o". (I would think of an egg if I heard the long "o".) However, I'm not a Latin scholar, so I'm only judging by the pronunciation of those whom I would expect to know (e.g. BBC etc). Since there are no surviving speakers of original Latin, I suppose we can take our choice without it being possible to prove us wrong! Dbfirs 07:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed the rule of thumb that people who say (for example) alto with a long initial vowel also say Ovid and some other words with a long initial vowel. I had some other examples, but can't recall them at the moment. It seemed to work for most people I heard say these words, unless they were encountering the words for the first time and echoing another speaker. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary says that the name of the Latin poet is pronounced with the LOT vowel in both UK and US English, but that there is also an American place name and personal name Ovid (see "Places in the United States" under Ovid (disambiguation)), which is pronounced with the GOAT vowel. As for Ovidian, it says that both vowels occur in both varieties, but that the LOT vowel is preferred in UK English and the GOAT vowel is preferred in US English. +An gr 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all, for the above input. Much appreciated! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A Chinese ingredient

I've recently inherited my grandmother's recipe book and I've decided to try my ahnd at some of the dishes. My grandmother was Chinese (and so am I, but I'm first generation) and consequently the book is also in Chinese. While I've been able to understand most of it, most of the recipes I'm interested in call for something called "味精" (wei4jing1), which I have not been able to translate. WHat is it in English and where can I buy it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.228.193 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling Wei4Jing1 tells me that's monosodium glutamate. 213.122.69.96 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Ajinomoto. See also zh:味精. Oda Mari (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

味精 is MSG; Ajinomoto is particular brand of it. I'd not treat the two as synonymous. --71.185.169.212 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Ajinomoto is a genericized trademark for MSG in some places. +An gr 22:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

definition and usage of indmerence

I ran across the word indmerence in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and can not find a definition or the histry and usage of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomboyd31 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have it spelled right? The ending "-ence" usually means that a word is comes from Latin, but "indmerence" doesn't look like it could be derived from Latin roots, and the first page of Google hits all seem to be obvious OCR errors... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The Google hits on "indmerence" are optical character recognition errors misidentifying the actual word "indifference". Are you by chance reading some sort of optically scanned version of Atlas Shrugged? Could you please type in the whole sentence so we can have some context? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Chinese character 必.

I was just wondering out of pure curiosity, does the Chinese character 必 (meaning to have to, should, must, etc.) have anything to do with the expression "cross my heart"? Or is that just purely coincidence? — Trevor K. — 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a semi-obsolescent reference work here ("Chinese Characters, Their Origin, Etymology, Classification, and Signification: A Thorough Study from Chinese Documents" by L. Wieger) which claims that the basis for 必 is an drawing of an arrow, and that it has nothing to do with radical 61 ("heart"). AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why the stroke order is nothing like the stroke order for 心. Paul Davidson (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. The stroke order of 必 is the same as that for 心, save for the additional stroke. --71.185.169.212 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "cross one's heart [and hope to die]" comes from the verb cross as in to make the sign of the cross, making it even more unlikely. 68.76.158.13 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Korea, the stroke order is not the same for 必 and 心. The strokes go center dot, diagonal from top right to bottom left, diagonal from top left to bottom right, left dot, right dot for 必. For 心, the strokes go left dot, wide stroke, center dot, right dot. --Kjoonlee 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the seal forms often provide a convenient clue as to whether two characters are related:

File:必-seal.svg
File:心-seal.svg

-- AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Chinese stroke order of 必 and this is the Japanese stroke order. AnonMoos is correct. According to the ja wikt 必 page, the original meaning was sandwiching a branch between splints and then squeeze and stretch. The meaning "certainly" and "surely" comes from "shaping the branch exactly". The character 心 originated from the shape of heart. Though the two characters look similar, the origin is different. Oda Mari (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The shape of a heart? Maybe I just have a dirty mind, but the seal form of 心 looks much more like a penis than like a heart to me. +An gr 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. Steewi (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

According to the semi-obsolescent reference work: "On the top, the pericardium opened; in the middle, the organ; at the bottom a summary delineation of the aorta." -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The La Tène culture" or just "La Tène culture"?

I think terms like La Défense lose the definite article in English, but what about (the) La Tène culture. Since "la" refers to Tène, my feeling is that "the" is required as an article for the whole "culture" term, but I'm uncertain and the article uses both versions in the lede. Which is correct or preferable? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on context, really. There is a store near my home called "The Tienda." Similarly the cosmetics company L'oreal is called The L'oreal Group, although that doubles the article. It depends on 'flow.' schyler (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's consistent for that term throughout the article, it won't make too much difference. Steewi (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the name of the la brea tar pits actually means the tar, making the la brea tar pits the the the tar tar pits. --Kjoonlee 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of tautological place names and List of tautonyms. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the four of you. I'm glad I asked, since this is another example where I cannot trust my own ear-to-gut signals. I decided (or, rather, remained indecisive) not to change the article since most of the examples of "La Tène culture" without "the" might also omit "the" if they were referring to the Halstatt culture (in other words, if there were no confusing French "La"). Confused, but thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 August 9

Contents