Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 April 28

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.

April 28

Request for translating a list of Japanese sources into English

There is a listing of Japanese sources at es:Wikipedia discusión:Consultas de borrado/Liceo Mexicano Japonés. Would anyone mind translating the list's entries into English? 日墨学院 and 日本メキシコ学院 are both names of the Liceo Mexicano Japonés.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

the number and the size of cities

Can the second definite article be omitted in the sentence "The number and the size of cities are increasing."? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.38 (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "the sizes of cities"? They're not all the same size. I'd express it as "The number of cities and their sizes are increasing". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel singular "size" works fine. To my ear, "sizes" mean that there are several defined sizes that cities come in, and those sizes are all getting bigger. In other words, the same thing you feel about the singular. Mingmingla (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either that, or it sounds like each city has more than one size, and those sizes are increasing. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

US English speaker here. I see no problem with dropping the second "the". But shouldn't it be "is" instead of "are" ? That is, "number is" and "size is" combine to make "The number and size of cities is increasing" or perhaps "The number and size of cities are both increasing" (where number and size are viewed collectively, rather than individually). StuRat (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't compute, Mr Rat. If you're grouping number and size into a single collective unit, then that means it requires a singular verb. "Both" has exactly the opposite effect to that which you intend. It points to the individual elements of the set, rather than the set as a single entity. So, "are both" works, but not for the reason you give. But, if "are both" works, who doesn't "are" work without "both"? Example: "John and Mary are both smoking" can be converted to "John and Mary are smoking", but not to "John and Mary is smoking". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, "each" would consider the items separately, as in "each person is a smoker", while "both" views them collectively, as in "both people are smokers". The question then comes up as to how they are treated by default, if neither word is used. I say the OP's sentence defaults to treating them individually ("the number is increasing" and "the size is increasing"), although others might disagree. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Both people are smokers" does view all of the people, but not as a single collective unit. "Both" is still grammatically plural. Another way of saying it is that "both" can only be used where the verb is already plural, and would remain plural if "both" were taken out. It is true that "both" and "each" operate differently, but not necessarily in the black-and-white way you seem to think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)