Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 June 13

Language desk
< June 12	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13

What do you call this seed?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baby_kunnikulangara/2440368709/ I am not asking for the botanical name. Is there a common name for such seeds that fly in the air?--117.204.82.169 (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

They are commonly called airborne seeds, which includes winged seeds and floating seeds. (Respectively "helicopters" and "fairies" around here.) Not sure how to provide a reference for such a thing, but google will bear me out. 81.131.67.82 (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a woodsprite to me. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have heard them called "fluff" (SW Ontario) or even "dandelion fluff" (despite the fact it's obviously not a dandelion seed). I think this is going to vary a lot from place to place. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sentence -- なれ

Hi

あしたは、また、元気になれそうな気がする。　

I believe this means something like "I think I should feel better again tomorrow". Is that right? However, I don't understand なれ. Could anyone explain that to me? 86.174.166.66 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

なれ comes from なれる, which is the potential form of the verb なる - 'become, get'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. So, literally it's "...can become/get better...", right? But why does なれる become just なれ here, I wonder? 86.174.166.66 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

That is because when そう is used after a verb without the る ending (for -ru verbs, which all verbs act like when in the potential form (-eru)), the meaning is 'seems like, looks like', etc. When used after verbs with the る ending still attached, the meaning 'changes' to '[somebody] told me that...'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. I think I must have accidentally missed a page in my textbook! Thank you. 86.161.152.225 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

Is cr*p a swear word?

While I know about WP:NOTCENSORED, I feel that it's more polite to use euphemisms. When I first heard of the word cr*p, I assumed it was some kind of mild profanity. However, the CALD does not identify 'something which is not worth anything, not useful, nonsense or of bad quality' as 'offensive' (their word for vulgar), while 'solid waste, or when an animal or person produces solid waste' is tagged as 'offensive'. (I'm using the e-version.) I was surprised as 'cr*ppy' was also considered offensive, and other words, such as the s-word, are considered offensive, both the original and figurative meanings. Then, on our article about profanity, I discovered a neat paper called 'delete expletives' which says cr*p is considered swearing by a minority. It is listed under some words that I, or the CALD for that matter, consider not swearing. So is cr*p a swear word? (I'm not a native speaker.) Kayau Voting IS evil 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a mild one. If s.t. annoying happens, you might say "Oh crap!". That's milder than "Oh shit!", which you might use for s.t. truly inconvenient, or if you hurt yourself. — kwami (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But c**p[1] means exactly the same as s**t, so is considered to be on a par by many. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaning the same doesn't immediately imply the same level of offensiveness/crudeness, though. "Fuck" and "copulate" both mean the same thing, but there's a large difference between "Are those two rabbits copulating?" and "Are those two rabbits fucking?" -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To me c**p is quite a lot milder than s**t. There are many situations in which I would be happy saying c**p but would not dream of saying s**t. I'm from the UK, by the way. 86.174.166.66 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

"Crap" is allowed on U.S. broadcast television, so I really wouldn't worry about shocking people by using it. It still might be impolite in some contexts, but probably only mildly so in itself... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The way I see this, in article space, never use even a mild profanity like 'crap', except where it's part of a direct quote or the passage is literally talking about (say) dog crap - and even then, a more formal word would be preferred. in talk or administrative space, profanity is not too much of an issue unless you're using it to attack someone: e.g. 'Oh, fuck, I forgot about editing policy' is not too objectionable, while 'user X is such a fuck' should be avoided at all costs.

wp:NOTCENSORED was not written to allow people to justify using swear words (any more than the purpose of the free speech clause in the US constitution was to allow the publication of pornography); it was designed to keep people from removing encyclopedic material that some people find troubling. read wp:CIV if you want the appropriate policy that governs talk page language. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't avoid words like "crap" in the article space because they are profanities; we avoid them because they are slang. Any slang, whether a profanity or not, is inappropriate in an encyclopaedia article. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2, I am asking about real life, not WP. :) Like Tango said we avoid using these words because it's slang. My linking to WP:NOTCENSORED is not related to the question. After all this is the reference desk not the help desk. BTW, a lot of Wikipedians use swear words in the talk namespace, so although it isn't actually good it isn't prohibited. If it's too inflammatory though the user should be blocked for repeated incivility or personal attacks. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap is not a swear word. (It was, however, mildly funny that you censored it in your main post.) Swearing on-wiki makes me slightly uncomfortable (not because I'm offended, but because I know others may be) but there are times when it is, well not warranted but understandable. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 05:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, crap! well, in real life there's a tried and true, easy as pie way to tell if a word is a swear word. would you feel comfortable saying it to your mother/grandmother in casual conversation? if not, then not... --Ludwigs2 05:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You have just disproven the existence of swear words. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't SS? Perhaps it's one of those like 'God damn' or 'Christ Almighty' that only some people consider offensive. BTW, I agree with 174.24.195.56. B******t means the same as poppycock, but the latter is not a swear word. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese

What do the names Hareta and Mitsumi (the main characters in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure!) mean? Typing in Hareta gives me nothing, and typing in Mitsumi only brings up an article about an electronics company. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the Japanese Wikipedia page, the names of those characters are written in katakana. Katakana are a phonetic rendering and do not display the meaning themselves. Without kanji, the names could mean practically anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But most other Japanese names (e.g. Hikari, Sakura, etc.) have only one meaning, or possibly a few closely-related meanings. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Some do, of course, but not most, just as in English we get some names that have an actual meaning in modern English (e.g. Pearl, Rose, etc.) and many others which do not (e.g. Walter, Elizabeth, Andrew, etc.). These two names Mitsumi and Hareta may have had some significance in older stages of Japanese, though I doubt that. A number of Japanese names can be formed by combining certain syllables - 'ko', 'yo', and 'mi', for example, can be used at the end of girls' names. 'Mitsu' can be used in the main stem of a name (both male and female), so 'Mitsuko', 'Mitsuyo', and 'Mitsumi' are all girls' names in Japanese (and you will find names like 'Yoshimitsu', 'Hidemitsu', and 'Mitsuo' for men). The actual meaning of the syllable 'mitsu' will vary from name to name, and will largely depend on the kanji. If there is no kanji, then the meaning is lost (or didn't exist to begin with). As for your assertion that 'most other Japanese names (e.g. Hikari, Sakura, etc.) have only one meaning, or possibly a few closely-related meanings ', you are misunderstanding the naming conventions in Japan. A name such as 'Megumi' can be written as 恵 (Blessing),　恵美 (Blessing & Beauty),　愛実 (Love & Truth),　愛美 (Love & Beauty), or　萌 (Flower Bud), or in other ways. All of these written forms have exactly the same pronunciation but different 'meanings'. Then there is the problem of ateji, which are kanji used in a name to indicate either the pronunciation or the meaning, but not both. In any case, Mitsumi and Hareta do not exist as stand-alone words in Japanese (except that 'hareta' is the past tense of the verb 'hareru' - 'to clear up/be clear' (as in weather)). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgen

If morgen is German for both morning and tomorrow, how would you express "tomorrow morning"? Maedin\^talk 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgen früh for the early morning, morgen Vormittag for the later morning. The border between them is around 9 AM or so. +Angr 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You also occasionally hear "morgen am morgen" Rimush (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In Spanish, where "mañana" means "morning" as well as "tomorrow", "mañana por la mañana" means "tomorrow morning". (wikt:mañana)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks very much, all three, :) Maedin\^talk 19:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding

Let's say that we have a document that goes along the lines of something like this:

1. Statement A holds true.
2. Statement B holds true.
3. Statement C holds true.
4. Notwithstanding the above, Statement D holds true.

My understanding is that Statement D somehow seems contradictory to (or prevented by) Statements A, B, and C. But, nonetheless, despite the seeming contradiction or disharmony, Statement D still holds true. So Line 4 above might be paraphrased as: "Statement D still holds true, despite the fact that A, B, and C exist and are seemingly contradictory." Is my understanding correct? If my understanding is correct, I have a follow-up question. If not, my follow-up question is moot. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

It is apparently contradictory. You're initially led to believe that A is always a true statement, but down the track you realise it isn't always true because D overrides it. Better to have been forewarned that there are some circumstances where A is not true. A more clearly written document would say things like "Statement A/B/C holds true, subject to Statement D". Then simply, "Statement D holds true". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of ‘notwithstanding’ as preposition, rather than as an adverb, is an instance of a necessary connection if the statements A, B, C, and D are propositions; rather than a contradiction in which the two concepts are merely connected is that the sense of one concept is contained in that of the other?

Like in these statements:

A: X is a teacher.

B: X is an adviser.

C: X is an activist.

D: Notwithstanding the above, X does x,y, and z things. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite following bitpart and Jack. the 'notwithstanding' in this kind of case simply means "despite all of those, the following is true". thus: "Jill is opinionated, Jill is rude, Jill is loud. Notwithstanding all that, you should listen to her." it doesn't have to be contradictory or paradoxical, it just needs to recognize a presupposition about Jill that one might make hearing the first statements, and then dispute that presupposition as false. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Very true, Ludwigs2. I was thinking of a more limited example. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean that ’notwithstanding’ is irrelevant in the context where the statements are paradoxical as oppose to where statements are in contradiction? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

no. it's all about presumptions. a paradox is just a set of seemingly true statements that lead one to an irrational conclusion. then it would make sense to say 'notwithstanding the statements, this more rational conclusion is correct'. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input above. I guess that I was thinking of statements that are more along the lines of "rules" or conditionals or such, telling us what course of action an individual must take. For example, let's say that two friends make a bet:

1: If it rains tomorrow, you owe me $50.
2: If it snows tomorrow, you owe me $100.
3: If it's sunny tomorrow, you owe me $500.
4: Notwithstanding the above, if we have a tornado tomorrow, you owe me $1000.

Can someone please explain / paraphrase exactly what statement 4 means? I am not quite sure how to read it, in context of the other three statements. I don't know what to make of the "notwithstanding" word in examples such as this (setting conditions or rules). Thank you very much! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

That's an odd use of the word, I think, but I would interpret it as meaning that if there is a tornado I owe you exactly $1000, regardless of the rest of the weather. Without the "notwithstanding the above" bit, if there were a tornado and some snow, I'd owe you $1100. --Tango (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is bit odd as to its convention that provides a kind of anchor or a court of appeal on the question of standards and appropriateness that apply to the norms on specific writing versus to those of simple spoken utterances. But for an elaboration, I guess there is nothing wrong with that. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question

Thanks for the above replies. So, here is my follow-up question ... which was the source of my confusion ... and which prompted my original question. Please take a look at my example above -- the example with the rain, snow, sun, and tornado scenarios. Would we say that conditions 1, 2, and 3 withstand condition 4? Or would we say that condition 4 withstands conditions 1, 2, and 3? This is why I was originally confused about the term "notwithstanding" to begin with. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

No, I don't think that use is standard. Each of the four items is pretty much the same kind of deal, so there's no need to use a notwithstanding in there. Ludwigs has the right idea; the "notwithstanding" serves to reassure the reader/hearer that all the items, however odd they sound together, are all held to be true by the speaker. It's kind of like a (sic) at the end of a quote that could be misinterpreted as having a typo. Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks to all for the helpful input and replies. Much appreciated. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Translation into Italian

I would be very grateful if someone could translate the following for me into good clear Italian (i.e. not the dodgy kind I can cobble together with the help of an online translator!)

"Sorry, but this booking was made in error, and I want to cancel it. I understand that the deposit is not refundable. Please email me to confirm that the booking has been cancelled. Thank you, and my apologies for the mistake."

Thanks folks - Karenjc 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Chiedo scusa, ma questa prenotazione è stata fatta per sbaglio e vorrei cancellarla. Comprendo che la caparra non è rimborsabile. Per cortesia, mandatemi un'email per confermare che la prenotazione è stata cancellata. Grazie e chiedo scusa per l'errore". From a native speaker. :-)--151.51.13.201 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed. Much appreciated - thanks again. - Karenjc 12:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Was a former"

I just read an article about a former football player who has died. The article says he "was a former football player". Isn't he still a former football player? Or is the original wording correct? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it's a bit redundant, but not too far outside the parameters of normal speech (and certainly not out side the parameters of normal sports journalism material, which has a long history of misapplications of language) ""is a former football player" and ""was a former football player" would be largely interchangeable in common usage. The first would be more common when speaking about someone alive - in that case 'former' would be a euphemism for 'retired' or 'from before your time' - and the phrasing would be most commonly used with an 'and' like "...is a former football player and team coach". --Ludwigs2 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This often happens in encyclopedia articles when a living subject dies. While they're alive, if they're retired it's correct to say "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player". The moment they die, it's not just a case of adjusting the tense of the verb 'to be' from "is" to "was". Our whole perspective on Joe changes, from someone who's a retired player, to someone who was notable during his life for playing football. The lede should then change from "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player" to "Joe Bloggs was an Albanian football player", but sometimes editors, in their haste to report that Joe is now dead, omit to attend to all the fine points. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jack, reading that sentence just now - "Joe Bloggs was an Albanian football player" - gave me the impression that he still was one when he died and that he hadn't retired. 'Was a former football player' sounds better to me, because he was one (i.e. a former football player) when he died. However, 'is a former football player' sounds strange because he no longer 'is' anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Apply your argument to real people who left their most important office/occupation well before they died. Would we say "Ronald Reagan was a former U.S. President ..." or "Ronald Reagan was the U.S. President 1981-89 ..."? Answer: the latter. He died in 2004, 15 years after leaving the White House. During those 15 years, it would have been correct to say "he is a former president". In a chronological sense, he remains a former president, so it's not wrong to continue to refer to him as such, but not with the past tense of "to be'. Because "he was a former president" would be true only of the years 1989-2004, the autumn of his life, whereas our post-mortem interest in him is what he did in the spring and summer of his life. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you shortchanging Ronnie his winter? That makes me so discontent. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Was a former" would only be coherent when speaking of someone's retirement years, after they've died or for a specific event in the past: "He was one of several former players to participate in ..." — kwami (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that we shouldn't say "was a former" either of someone alive ("is a former") or of someone dead ("was a") except under special circumstances. However, I also wouldn't say "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player" if he's still Albanian (Xho Blogz, perhaps?) but "Joe Bloggs is an Albanian former football player" or "Joe Bloggs is a former football player from Albania". Unless, of course, there's a variety of football called Albanian football (cf. American football, Canadian football, and Australian football). +Angr 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe Xho Bllogz. --Магьосник (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If there isn't, there should be. I can't wait to attend the inaugural Albanian Football World Cup. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning, Angr, and in principle I agree with it. But it's not really necessary to make that distinction, because if the subject is no longer Albanian, it would be necessary to state what their nationality/citizenship now is, but since no alternative has been stated, we can safely assume the "former" refers only to their football playing activities, and not to their nationality. Cf. "Yusuf Bloxha is a retired Albanian chicken sexer" - nobody would read this to mean that he's no longer an Albanian, just no longer a chicken sexer. Same with "former". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)