Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 May 19
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 18 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 20 > |
| 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. |
May 19
editSpanish diphthongs followed by vowel
editIn standard Spanish, when a word ending in /ai/, /ei/ or /oi/ is followed by a vowel (for example, "Voy al cine", "Hay una tienda", or "El rey es un hombre") does the /i/ remain vocalic or does it become [ʝ]? In other words, are "reyes" and "rey es…" pronounced the same or differently? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- The pronunciation of the final vowel (and liquids) changes by dialect. From a prescriptive viewpoint, the [ʝ] only comes "at the beginning of the last syllable," not at the end of words. (Gramatica Española, 1917, p. 485). 66.226.194.210 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
"Reyes" and rey es" do not fall together in my speech, since the verb es bears its own tonic stres: in effect "réyes" vs "réy és". If there were clitics that fit this question we'd have a better answer, but except for os I can't think of any that begin in vowels, and I don't use that pronoun so I have no natural example. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Another counterexample would be haya versus ha ya ("he have", vs "has already") in which the first has stress only on the first syllable, whereas the second has two stresses, one for each word. In fact, you could add hay a. They all seem distinct to me. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- How about "el rey está"? And for those whose word for soybeans is "soya" rather than "soja", there's "soy a". One could even compare "soy a menudo..." with an imaginary (I hope) dish "soya-menudo". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- In my speech,the e in está will be less tense/long in quality than the final e in reyes. I have looked for sources but found none, unfortunately. It is very difficult for me to pretend any objectivity here, as I know how absolutely wrong native English speakers can be about their intuitions of their own English speech. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright in Translations
editHello
Some one has translated the New Testament into an obscure variety of a language spoken in Central America/Mexico. She has copyrighted her translation. Does this preclude me from translating a Public Domain version of the New Testament into that same language?
Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- We can't give you legal advice here. Saying that some action is or isn't legal in a certain jurisdiction is usually considered legal advice. But I can show you some legal information, and ask you some questions. I suggest you read the first bit of History_of_copyright_law. Also consider: Odyssey#Notable_English_translations, and ask yourself, were any of these authors prevented from publishing English translations of the Odyssey due to an extant prior translation? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Punctuation
editThe column for Certified Sales above includes markets, the databases of which contain certifications representing figures of 100,000 and more.
Is the comma in this sentence correct? (I am only asking about the punctuation of this exact sentence. I am not asking for suggestions about how it could be reworded.) 86.167.19.243 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- You might enjoy reading about apositive constructions. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, let me be more explicit. I think that the comma is wrong. Do you agree? Does anyone else agree or disagree? 86.167.19.243 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, let me be more explicit. I think that the comma is wrong. Do you agree? Does anyone else agree or disagree? 86.167.19.243 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you are in negotiation with a publishing house, or beholden to other outside forces, comma usage is fairly informal, and there are relatively few instances where they can be unequivocally demanded or barred (unlike e.g. a period). So do what you want. My personal take is the sentence is bad, but removal of the comma would make it worse. ( My link above was intended to convey that apposition usually comes with a comma; without the comma, it can be jarring and confusing ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I take a sterner line. This is a restrictive apposition, because not all markets have the characteristic mentioned. The part after the comma is not parenthetical, but is crucial in defining the particular markets under discussion. It absolutely requires there be NO comma. If it were rewritten as:
- The column for Certified Sales above includes markets whose databases contain certifications representing figures of 100,000 and more,
- I don't think anyone would argue for a comma. Well, the original sentence is a more rigidly correct version of that, replacing "whose databases" with "the databases of which", presumably because markets are not human and should not take personal pronouns. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- As to the comma, I agree that it's not allowed. As to "of which", it's just more formal than "whose", rather than "more rigidly correct". It is true that a few people have been complaining for centuries that "whose" should not be used to refer to things, but it continues to be accepted usage despite them. In the American Heritage Dictionary entry here, you will find a usage note reading in part:
- It has sometimes been claimed that whose is properly used only as the possessive form of who and thus should be restricted to animate antecedents, as in a man whose power has greatly eroded. But there is extensive literary precedent for the use of whose with inanimate antecedents, as in The play, whose style is rigidly formal, is typical of the period. In an earlier survey this example was acceptable to a large majority of the Usage Panel.
- Here are links to entries in other dictionaries where the usage of "whose" with a thing is simply listed without comment: Collins, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford (British English), Oxford (American English).
- --50.100.193.30 (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- As to the comma, I agree that it's not allowed. As to "of which", it's just more formal than "whose", rather than "more rigidly correct". It is true that a few people have been complaining for centuries that "whose" should not be used to refer to things, but it continues to be accepted usage despite them. In the American Heritage Dictionary entry here, you will find a usage note reading in part:
- I take a sterner line. This is a restrictive apposition, because not all markets have the characteristic mentioned. The part after the comma is not parenthetical, but is crucial in defining the particular markets under discussion. It absolutely requires there be NO comma. If it were rewritten as:
- Jack, would you pause after "markets" if speaking the sentence? My reading was that commas are not demanded in restrictive apposition, not that they were completely disallowed. I looked at the source from our article, and it just says "Essential appositives are not set off by commas, such as in the sentence: an appositive that is essential to defining its subject is not set off by commas. " I agree with no comma for most restrictives that use "that" or "whose", as those constructions usually don't take a verbal pause. To my eye and ear, a brief pause before the "the" is a big help to comprehension. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would. That was the main reason why I thought the comma was fine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think the comma belongs. But the sentence could be written differently: "The column above, "Certified Sales", only includes markets of 100,000 or more." Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would. That was the main reason why I thought the comma was fine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, would you pause after "markets" if speaking the sentence? My reading was that commas are not demanded in restrictive apposition, not that they were completely disallowed. I looked at the source from our article, and it just says "Essential appositives are not set off by commas, such as in the sentence: an appositive that is essential to defining its subject is not set off by commas. " I agree with no comma for most restrictives that use "that" or "whose", as those constructions usually don't take a verbal pause. To my eye and ear, a brief pause before the "the" is a big help to comprehension. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is a fair correspondence between commas and vocal pauses, but not a mathematically rigorous one-to-one correspondence. Language is not bijective in that way. Different people will pause at different places, so there's a strong element of subjectivity about the pause test. Sometimes pauses are for other reasons, such as the preceding or following words being multitudinous, and respiration being required before continuing. The pause test might generally work OK in a short sentence, but in a longish one like the OP's example it should be tempered with some analysis. Take a shorter example. Compare:
- All students who use their free time wisely should handle the test easily. This is restrictive because it is referring only to those students who use their free time wisely. It is only those students who will handle the test easily; the others will struggle. Nothing controversial with that statement. Adding commas there would be wrong, inaccurate and misleading, because it would be indistinguishable from ...
- All students, who use their free time wisely, should handle the test easily. This is non-restrictive because it is referring to all students. It is asserting, parenthetically, that all students do use their free time wisely, and that consequently all students will handle the test easily. Any teacher will confirm this is a highly contentious statement, and very far removed in meaning from the above example. Removing the commas from this sentence would be wrong, inaccurate and misleading, because it would be indistinguishable from the above example.
- Most appositive clauses can be examined similarly. There may be some where a comma is truly optional, but in most cases it either must be there or must not be there. No middle ground. The OP's example is like this, in my opinion. Pauses, wherever they may be made when speaking, do not enter into this examination. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- (OP) This is my feeling too. The comma changes the meaning, in this case making the meaning completely wrong compared to what was obviously intended. 86.169.185.216 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- What he said. For more on what Jack is so eloquently (and correctly) going on about, see English relative clauses#Restrictive or non-restrictive relative clauses. Evan (talk|contribs) 22:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- How does the comma change the meaning? I think the comma is neither right nor wrong. I don't see any difference in meaning with or without the comma. I said that "I think the comma belongs". Let me change that to "it doesn't matter". This, again, is the sentence: "The column for Certified Sales above includes markets, the databases of which contain certifications representing figures of 100,000 and more." Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Without the comma, it would mean that all markets have databases containing certifications representing figures of 100,000 and more. That is clearly wrong. The sentence is talking about not just some markets, but triply qualified markets. To qualify, a market must (a) have figures of 100,000 or more; (b) have certifications representing such figures; and (c) have databases containing such certifications. There are markets whose figures do not exceed 99,999, so they fail the first test. Then there are those who exceed 99,999 but do not have certifications. And so on. The only way to ensure the sentence is limited to only those markets that satisfy all three qualifications is to make the clause restricted, and that means NOT having a comma after its referent. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence only means one thing—with or without the comma. The sentence is simply talking about a vertical column of numbers. There are presumably horizontal rows of "markets". One market may be Akron, Ohio. Another market may be New York, New York. That vertical column of numbers is probably labeled at the top or at the bottom with the words "Certified Sales". The sentence we are discussing is telling us that "certified sales" for a "market" are included only if that market contains more than 100,000 certified sales. The sentence under discussion is telling us that any market with fewer than 100,000 certified sales has been omitted. The sentence is telling us that just in case you were wondering why a certain market is "missing", the answer is because it contains fewer than 100,000 certified sales. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Without the comma, it would mean that all markets have databases containing certifications representing figures of 100,000 and more. That is clearly wrong. The sentence is talking about not just some markets, but triply qualified markets. To qualify, a market must (a) have figures of 100,000 or more; (b) have certifications representing such figures; and (c) have databases containing such certifications. There are markets whose figures do not exceed 99,999, so they fail the first test. Then there are those who exceed 99,999 but do not have certifications. And so on. The only way to ensure the sentence is limited to only those markets that satisfy all three qualifications is to make the clause restricted, and that means NOT having a comma after its referent. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- How does the comma change the meaning? I think the comma is neither right nor wrong. I don't see any difference in meaning with or without the comma. I said that "I think the comma belongs". Let me change that to "it doesn't matter". This, again, is the sentence: "The column for Certified Sales above includes markets, the databases of which contain certifications representing figures of 100,000 and more." Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is a fair correspondence between commas and vocal pauses, but not a mathematically rigorous one-to-one correspondence. Language is not bijective in that way. Different people will pause at different places, so there's a strong element of subjectivity about the pause test. Sometimes pauses are for other reasons, such as the preceding or following words being multitudinous, and respiration being required before continuing. The pause test might generally work OK in a short sentence, but in a longish one like the OP's example it should be tempered with some analysis. Take a shorter example. Compare:
- That is a reasonable and plausible context. Even so, I stand by by my earlier remarks. The comma makes it say something other than that which we agree it is trying to say. If it makes no difference either way, what purpose could the comma be serving? The length of the sentence might explain a pause, but sentence length alone has nothing to do with the restrictivity of any clauses it contains. In other words, adding a comma to the written text to mark every time you pause when speaking it, if done only for that reason, would be a recipe for disaster. Unless one is wishing to mark oneself as a sub-standard writer. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, with the comma it means this: "The column for Certified Sales above includes markets. The databases of markets contain certifications representing figures of 100,000 and more." This is obviously not what was meant, and in fact makes little sense, which is probably why you are reading what you expect it to say and not what it actually does say. I asked this question to get confirmation of my viewpoint in order to persuade someone else (off Wikipedia). I expected unanimous agreement that the comma was wrong. I am surprised that several people here do not think it is wrong. 86.169.185.216 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why not just rewrite the sentence? I think we are all in agreement that its meaning is unclear. It should be crystal clear, shouldn't it? I am not sure we can isolate a problem such as whether there should be one or two or zero commas. The aim should be clear communication. Perhaps that could be accomplished best by employing more than one sentence. But of course we would have to know what the sentences are trying to say. I thought I took a stab at explaining what it is trying to say. But maybe it is trying to say something that simply escapes my imagination. Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, I think it is trying to say exactly what you think it says, but is saying it incorrectly. "Why not rewrite the sentence?" -- maybe, but as I mentioned right at the start, my question is not about that, it is purely about the punctuation of this exact sentence. 86.169.185.216 (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why not just rewrite the sentence? I think we are all in agreement that its meaning is unclear. It should be crystal clear, shouldn't it? I am not sure we can isolate a problem such as whether there should be one or two or zero commas. The aim should be clear communication. Perhaps that could be accomplished best by employing more than one sentence. But of course we would have to know what the sentences are trying to say. I thought I took a stab at explaining what it is trying to say. But maybe it is trying to say something that simply escapes my imagination. Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone recommend a resource...
editDoes anyone know of a place where I can find examples of contemporary spoken Mandarin (for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLe9VwuJRGg) but that will have Chinese language subtitles that are not burnt into the video and can be copy-pasted into dictionaries etc for lookup.
Thanks
Duomillia (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. That's exactly what Phonemica is doing. It has many examples of many varieties of Mandarin, categorized by dialect. The site appears broken for me so I cannot check whether it also includes samples of Standard Mandarin. Each sample is neatly divided into sentences, most samples have transcriptions in Chinese characters and/or Pinyin, and many samples also have glosses and/or translations (in English or, for dialects far from the standard, in Standard Mandarin, I think), so you can skip the dictionary part.
- If you are interested in the Beijing dialect and surrounding dialects, I recommend Beijing Sounds. 82.83.66.122 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Many youtube videos have cloased-caption subtitles, including many contemporary shows, often in addition to the burnt-in ones. You can filter by closed caption to find them. You can't select and copy them, whether in the Flash or HTML5 player, but a quick Google on e.g. 'copy youtube subtitles' find many sites with information on and resources to help with downloading them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Bingo! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYclEA9wuo Duomillia (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- You might also find UN Radio useful. Click on a story, then click on the "收听" link to hear the text read aloud.--Cam (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)