Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 December 16

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.

December 16

"Knowledge is the fruits of science"?

Over at the humanities desk, I wrote "Knowledge is the fruits of science, not science itself", and I'm looking for better phrasing. One thing that bugs me is the singular/plural discrepancy between uncountable knowledge and countable fruits. Is it even correct this way? The other thing I dislike is that the reference in the second phrase is unclear (it should be read as "science is not composed of the knowledge it produces"). There should be a pithy way of expressing that idea more clearly... (there also should be world peace and a human colony on Mars, but I'll try to fix my part first ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Singular "fruit" would work better, IIRC that's how it's usually translated in the Bible, in Galatians 5 fruit of the spirit. --Jayron32 11:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz -- number discord between a copular sentence's subject and predicate can sometimes make a sentence sound a little strange, but it's not grammatically incorrect as such, and the verb should still agree with the subject (except possibly in the case of "there is" / "there are"). So "Soylent Green is people!", not "Soylent Green are people!"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the origin of "shtang" or "shtaung"?

I noticed that the nurses in my country (Israel) call the vein blockers / Tourniquet in the name "shtang" or "shtaung". It's very interesting for me to know the origin. Could you help? 5.28.177.164 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly "Stauung", the German word for stasis (among other). See also Stauschlauch. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of the English word 'staunch', which may be related. It seems to me the Israeli nurses are using a Yiddish word. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It happens. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering it is spelled שטאנג (a picture) Contact Basemetal here 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another word for "Stauschlauch" is "Stauer" (or sometimes "Venenstauer"), the agent noun of stauen. The (German) medical equipment manufacturing company in Basemetal's picture labels them "Stauer" too, which is closer to "Shtaung" than "Stauschlauch", but not quite "Stauung" - yet, to use "Stauung" for the tool itself would be metonymy (in German) ..., I'm still unsure whether it's a Yiddish connection or where the nasal ending comes from. There's also an Israeli company named Shtang, but it's a construction and engineering company ... ---Sluzzelin talk 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all. I think I've got the origin and is German. According to Babilon, "Stauung" in german is: congestion, overcrowding, abnormal accumulation, stasis, stoppage of circulation of body fluids5.28.177.164 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "data" singular or plural?

When I queried Wikipedia before posting I found examples of both. What is the preferred usage for the United States? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Preferred by who? --65.94.50.4 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Data" is the plural, and "datum" is the singular. However, the singular is rarely used, like a sud or a grit. But just what would constitute a single piece of data anyway ? One bit ? It's like if there was a singular form of "water", when would you use that, when you have a single molecule of H₂O ?

The one place I have seen "datum" used is in engineering drawings, where it's a point off which many dimensions are measured. Of course, a datum point will require many bits, when represented digitally, so we could also consider that to be plural.StuRat (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the term "data point" as being equivalent to "datum". As you suggest, a single point of data by itself is pretty much meaningless. A collection of those data points, i.e. "data", is potentially meaningful. Then there's the question of whether to say "data" with a long-a or a short-a. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In colloquial usage, data is a mass noun like information so it takes a singular verb. In more formal usage, it's plural. I would base my decision on whether to treat is as a singular or a plural on the register I was using it in. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Similar confusion with "media" vs. "medium". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes register is the key here. Even in very distinguished academic crowds a phrase like "the data are interesting" can come off a stuffy and obnoxious, almost like a form of hypercorrection. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the register comment, but even in the most formal setting I would use data as a mass noun in the singular for a collection of data, and datum in the singular for a particular value. I.e. "the data shows normal distribution, but there is an unusual datum at x=4.3". Instinctively, I'd even go with "two datums" over "two data", although in that case I'd actually pick neither, and go with "data points". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The trick is to use defective verbs or to avoid the present, passive and progressive: "My data can beat up your data". μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So, it is singular. I am relieved. That's what I've always thought. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not that simple, per the discussion above. For example, you would never say "I have a data for you". StuRat (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Trying to pronounce ð and θ

Hi there,
I've tried to pronounce those consonants,
I would like to hear comments about my pronunciation,
Beginning with accent, and particularly the pronunciation of the THs.
It should be "they think".
http://picosong.com/4MHE/
Another issue is that I noticed that most of the native-English speakers, put their tongue out.
What I do, is putting my edge of the tongue on my front teeth,so another part of the tongue is sliding out from the "teeth box".
It's like my tongue is in a C-like shape. Is it okay?
15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.104.133 (talk)

Acoustically, the pronunciation in the sound file sounds right to me. (That is, the [θ] and the [ð] sound right; the pause between they and think doesn't sound natural at all.) English speakers don't normally stick their tongue very far out when making the sounds though; just a tiny bit. If you have the tip of your tongue behind your front bottom teeth and the area just behind that is what comes out between the teeth, that's fine too. As long as what you're producing sounds like [θ] and [ð], in other words as long as you get the acoustics right, no one's going to worry too much about the exact position of your tongue. Most English speakers will be content as long as your pronunciation of "they think" doesn't sound like "zey sink" or "dey tink". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you also record "vey fink" so we can compare with what your [v] and [f] sound like? Acoustically I think these are the closest consonants to [ð] and [θ]. They're only a little bit darker. Btw, why don't you record a video so we can see your tongue, teeth and lips. In any case, here's a bunch of YouTube videos. Contact Basemetal here 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

English speakers only put their tongue out when they are teaching the sounds, either to foreigners or children - purely to show how to do it. In normal speech, however, it is not normal to do so. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, very good! Much better than the examples you posted a few weeks ago. Nobody would confuse your example for a native speaker, but to me it's completely intelligible. To my ear, there's a little less distinction between the two sounds than a native speaker would make, but there's enough difference to make it work. My WP:OR: your level of accent would not stand out in many academic departments in the USA. Assuming that you are ok on grammar and vocabulary I think we could have a conversation in English :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  As an afterthought: [ð] and [θ] are fricatives so you can pronounce them on their own, you don't have to follow them with vowels. Such a recording would be the best check. In a recording where they are immediately followed by vowels they are too short, it may be more difficult to tell if you've got them down right. Contact Basemetal here 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Myself, I don't even bother trying. The sound doesn't exist in my native Finnish, so I have never learned it natively. I don't understand instructions on how to place my tongue and my lips, nor do I understand fancy words to describe vocal sounds. I just substitute "t'h" ("t" followed by "h") for the "th" sound and haven't had problems communicating with foreigners, even native English speakers, so far. JIP | Talk 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to it though. Juθt pretend you are a Finn with a lithp: "Olen θuomalainen joθθa leθpata". (Ið thiθ good Finnish? Comeð out of Google Tranθlate of courθe). Thiθ θaid I think there are even dialects of English where theðe θounds are pronounθed the way you do. Contact Baθemetal here 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't even know how to lisp (or lithp). I had to undergo speech therapy in my grade school days, because I was told I pronounced the letter "s" wrong. I never learned what was wrong with it, and I don't think I understood anything about the speech therapy. In the past two and a half decades, no one has ever said there was anything wrong with how I pronounce the letter "s". JIP | Talk 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, your example was good, but not perfect. It means something like "I am a Finn in whom to lisp". Proper Finnish would be "Olen suomalainen joka lespaa". JIP | Talk 20:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want inθtruction in liθping take a look at thiθ (although he ið being a bit inconθiθtent) Contact Baθemetal here 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My God, I almoθt forgot thiθ claθθic. Thiθ would have been unforgivable Contact Baθemetal here 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Language is for communication, not for pretending to be a native - your passport will show you are not. There is no point in trying to mimick natives to get the sounds right. Some dialects don't even have the two sounds referred to in the original question (my own dialect included). All you have to do is make sure you are coherent and understood. That is what language is for. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(then see shibboleth) --catslash (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

KageTora's advice is fine in an academic setting with a patient or captive audience. But in others there are many advantages to learning to mimic a native speaker. And mimic is a good word, since one should not be afraid to sound even humorous as if one is "putting on" an accent. That's how one actually does achieve native(-like) pronunciation. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am serious. When I was in China for the first time, 21 years ago, I went on a trip with an interpreter who was Chinese, and she was so proud of her Georgian (US) accent. She had never been outside China, and had learned it from TV and films (and most probably her English teacher). After a few days with me, she had started to pick up my British accent, and she was so annoyed about it 'polluting' her Georgian accent that she refused to speak to me (basically causing her to be useless as an interpreter). This is an extreme case, of course, but I thought it was completely unnecessary for her to speak in such an obscure dialect of a place she has never visited. The way I see it is, if you can get your point across, accent doesn't matter. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you weren't serious. I understand your point. And I don't think anyone should hang his ego on it. And I certainly didn't mention esoterically maintained regional accents, per se, but a phonetically standard "generic" accent. It is simply a fact that there is plenty of discrimination, bigotry, and simple lost opportunity regarding those with an obvious accent.

Immigrants will find they are much better accepted as insiders by a local population if they speak as the natives do. Phone communication, especially in low fidelity situations, can be greatly hampered by an accent. The ability to find a good job (again, outside credentialed environments like academia) can be hampered. For example, people who man call centers are much less likely to get hung up on by a frustrated American if the have a passable American accent, not just an ability to speak English.

It's simply not good general advice to say, don't bother, it doesn't matter. In very many cases it does. If the person is willing to make the effort, he should be encouraged, not discouraged. That being said, one simply can't teach phonetics to an untrained linguist/polyglot through text--a matter that has been the subject of dozens of threads here. Oral-aural interaction and modestly skilled training is necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, I can agree that if you work in a call centre and are cold-calling native speakers, and you have a foreign accent, the phone will be put down on you, but that also happens with native speakers cold-calling people. If your English is so near-perfect, you shouldn't be doing a low-paid commission-only job in a call-centre anyway. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Do I detect a slight catch 22 here? No one should be working in a call center: those whose English is too poor (for a call center) because they can't and those whose English is good enough because they could be doing something else, and, no, I don't work in a call center. But leaving that aside, in my experience, there are many advantages in not sounding (too much) like a funnyner. Plus, it's not a matter of aping native speakers, but of trying to acquire a skill that they have by learning from them. Trying to master an accent is in itself fun and a challenge, a bit like trying to learn to play an instrument. How much effort to put into it is an individual choice. And of course you should never hold back just because of your accent, especially if you've got something important to say. I agree that the top priority is to maintain communication and that the most important use of language is to allow us to communicate with each other. Contact Basemetal here 17:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You have changed and compounded the question, KageTora. I mentioned customers themselves calling customer service and being frustrated with getting a foreigner, as opposed to someone who sounds like a native. You changed that to cold calling, which is in itself inherently annoying. You could have made the same point more boldly by saying people don't like getting stabbed, whether or not the knife-wielder has a lisp. And you argue in favor of my point when you say that people with better diction can count on better jobs than being cold-callers. I have made my points above that speaking so that you are not immediately marked out as an outsider has large advantages, and that those who want to improve their speech ability should be encouraged. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh! Eh! Kahm down, kahm down! A wuz not sayin' nuttin' about not tryin' ter sound like a native speaker. A wuz merely sayin' da' English 'as so many accents and dialects da' it doesn't really matter. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There are also other reasons why someone might want to know exactly how native speakers do things. Because I studied linguistics and am still interested in it, I always want to know purely for my own edification exactly how exotic sounds in foreign languages are made, and exactly what syntactic structures are grammatical in another language, and all that sort of thing, and answers like "Don't worry about it, everyone will understand you" are very frustrating, because being understood isn't the issue for me. Increasing my understanding of the human language facility is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Building on what Medeis has said, native speakers react much more favorably toward a foreigner who has made some effort to pronounce the language correctly, even if the foreigner does not sound like a native speaker. Native speakers do not react as favorably when, for example, foreigners have not even bothered to master the consonants of the language. Native speakers of English are more forgiving about vowels (including R-coloring), probably because those vary so much among natively spoken varieties of English. The more work a native speaker has to do to understand the foreigner, the less likely he or she will want to bother to do so. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

attn vs. c/o

In a mailing address, what is the difference between attn. and c/o? What are their uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.252.156 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Attention identifies the specific recipient or department at an address with many residents or employees. Care of indicates a party like a hospital or jail that will receive what is sent, and then pass it on to the intended recipient. For example, your uncle John is in a hospital and you don't know the room: Attn. John Q. Smith, c/o Bellvue Hospital, N.Y., NY 100XX. 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Use Attention when you want to communicate with someone as a member of the organization addressed: "XYZ Potholders, attention of Alice Aardvark". You don't mind if someone else at XYZ opens the letter, but it'll save time if they know Alice is the one who needs to read it.

You use care of or courtesy of if the communication is not relevant to the person or entity whose address it is. If Bob is on the road and you know he'll spend a night at a certain hotel, you might write to "Bob c/o Generic Hotel". You do not intend any of the hotel's staff to open it, only to handle it on Bob's behalf.

So if I order a package sent to my work address because it would be impractical to receive it at home, it should be addressed to "Tamfang c/o [employer]"; whereas if it's for my use at work, "[employer] attn Tamfang". —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)