Language desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

Russian spam

Lately my spam-filters see this a hundred times a day: Только наши телочки так сладко стонут... (usually with at least one misspelling). This seems to mean Only our телочки moan so sweetly; what's that one word? —Tamfang (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calves. DAVID ŠENEK 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calves or calves? —An gr 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a bestiality spam? —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google Images search (with Safe Search turned off) for the word телочки you will get lots of non-safe-for-work images, none of them relating to bestiality. I think the word must have some other meaning as well. —An gr 06:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried it, the third image was of a reenactment of a rumor about a certain Empress, if you know what I mean. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Oxford Russian-English dictionary doesn't have any such word as телочeк/телочкa/телочки. It does have the colloquial word for calf, телок, and the more standard word телёнок. Телочки would be a perfectly normal way of deriving a diminutive (pl.) of телок; and Russians are fond of using diminutives for things that are already relatively small, thus making them sound even smaller - e.g. маленький мальчик is the usual way of referring to a boy of any age, but considered word-for-word it means "little boy". So, телочки could mean a young calf, even a baby calf, or it could just mean a calf of indeterminate age. Looking up "calf" in my English-Russian dictionary, I get only телёнок. But looking down the page, my eye espied "calflove", a word I'd never heard of before. It translated it as ребяческая любовь, or юношеское увлечение. The first means "childish or infantile love", the second "youthful passion". The sense I get is that they're talking about a young person exhibiting feelings for another person. So far, so good. Turning now to my trusty English-English dictionary, I find that calf love is a "temporary infatuation of a young boy or girl for a person of the opposite sex". In the context of the question, I guess телочки could be some sort of code for the subjects of pedophiliac attention, but on the face of it, it seems to be related to the reverse of pedophilia, i.e. a young person having a crush on an older person, quite a natural and common phenomenon. These days, though, you never know what words mean to initiates. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Тёлочка is the hypocoristic form of тёлка, that is, "little cow". Тёлочки may be loosely translated as chicks. Only our chicks moan so sweetly. I like that :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of world languages

Does anyone here know of a map of the world with the countries colour-coded along the lines of Image:English-as-Official-Language Map.png but for multiple languages? I don't think I've seen one before but I'd like to. — maestrosync ^talk — 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Image:Human_Language_Families_(wikicolors).png (and several variants of it, I believe). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for this Article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker ?

There is a Wiki template (or something similar) to say: this Article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker ? I'm not English mother tongue and I would like to flag temporally an Article in order to have some other editor to check its readability (for example Lives of the Prophets I've developed from a stub). Thanks. A ntv (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of those at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Translation, most likely Template:RoughTranslation or Template:Cleanup-translation. You can also drop a message to an available proofreader who is proficient in your mother language (Category:Available proofreaders in Wikipedia) or leave a proofreading request on Wikipedia:Translation. Nanonic (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question [agreement of verb with compound subject]

Is it "Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) is acting silly" or "Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) are acting silly"?

I thought that I could write "Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) is ..." because Jack was the subject. Apparently, I'm wrong, even if I put brackets around "and his ever present sidekick John". I was thinking that because I intend John only to be incidental that I could take Jack as the subject instead of "Jack and John". 203.217.43.170 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend changing and to along with. Then nobody—one would think—could deny that the parenthetical material does not affect the number of the subject, and you could use is with impunity. I'd also hyphenate ever-present. Deor (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If John is ever-present, then he's not incidental, is he? What about "Jack and John (his ever present sidekick) are acting silly" ? --LarryMac | Talk 19:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "parenthetic" subject is traditionally excluded from deciding the number of the subject for the purposes of agreement with the verb. What constitutes a "parenthetic" subject is fuzzy (e.g. phrases like "as well as", marking off with commas) but if it's in parentheses then it's definitely parenthetic. jnestorius^(talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Ah, yes. Edit conflict with Jnestorius. I'll post it exactly as I had it anyway:]

I agree with Deor: change and to along with. That's one perfectly sound way of keeping a singular form of the verb. But the brackets complicate things, since in cases like this what's inside them ought not to affect the syntax of what's outside. Acceptable solutions therefore include these:

Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, are acting silly.
Jack, along with his ever-present sidekick John, is acting silly.
Jack (along with his ever-present sidekick John) is acting silly.

I have added a hyphen, and managed commas carefully. In each case another comma is possible before John, but it would clutter things needlessly.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to gainsay the ever-correct Noetica, are the commas necessary - or even desirable - in "Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, are acting silly"? The form is "A, and B, are doing X", which seems fairly non-acceptable to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due deference to my esteemed antipodean colleague JackofOz, I point out that I wrote "acceptable solutions therefore include these". I do not claim that those commas are necessary or even desirable, in most situations in which the sentence would be deployed. But the question was put in terms of some such parenthetic structure, and there are indeed contexts in which this very interpolation would be parenthetical. Consider:

"How is Jack behaving today?" "Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, are acting silly."

See? The main point is to respond to a question about Jack; and the information about John, being a gratuitous amplification, is parenthetical.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not convinced. If "and his ever-present sidekick John" is truly parenthetical, it would have to be "Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, is acting silly", wouldn't it? Seems to me the choices are: commas and "is", or no commas and "are". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that sometimes there is a rhetorical reason for setting off part of a compound subject with commas, but doing so doesn't necessitate the use of a singular verb. As a style guide I happen to have handy (Words into Type) says, "The copy editor should not be misled by punctuation that makes a plural subject appear to be a singular subject followed by a parenthetical phrase"—an example given being "The great diversity of the risks covered, and the complex nature of the business, introduce production problems of an unusual character" (emphasis mine). Deor (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, we might distinguish semantic and syntactic parenthesis.

Brackets (or "parentheses", in the Vespuccian patois) isolate the syntax of the included material much more trenchantly than other devices. A pair of commas has little isolating effect; a pair of sentence-level dashes (em dshes, or my preferred spaced en dashes) has an isolating effect intermediate between commas and brackets.

Semantic parenthesis is a more fluid affair than syntactic parenthesis. In suggesting that and his ever-present sidekick John may in some situations be parenthetical, I mean semantically parenthetical.

Then there is prosodic parenthesis. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ill-equipped to engage in discourse of such abstruseness, being a mere dilettante who thinks he generally knows good grammar and bad grammar when he sees them. So I won't argue any more. But I know what I'd be writing if I were writing the sentence in question, and anyone who dared question me would have a fight on their hands. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Jack and his sometimes-present sidekick Noetica do not agree on the matter! But does Jack know much about punctuation? I think that Jack, and his friend Noetica, are quite knowledgeable, really. I would even say that Jack – and of course, Noetica – is generally pretty good on these matters. One might always assume that Jack (with the Great Noetica) is always worth listening to. Gwinva (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Gwinva! I said I would contact you, not edit conflict with you! Anyway, clever self-referential use of parentheses. Or should that be self-parenthetical use of references? I can't be sure any more. Still, let us bluff ever onward:]

And modest, too, JoO. I like that! :)

Actually the terminology is up for grabs. It pays to bluff, and to assume an air of authority whether it be warranted or no. (I did – a bit, at least.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who has posted any response other than a decisive MAKE AGREEMENT AS THOUGH THERE ARE NO PARANTHESES (AS THOUGH YOU'RE READING OUT LOUD) is WRONG. There is one and only one way to continue a sentence after you've included some parentheses: as though the things in parentheses weren't in parentheses.

It is:

"Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) are acting silly"
"In all our storied past (and currently, and in all our foreseeable future) we shall remain..."
"Neither you nor Jacky (nor I) am a good person to discuss this with"

It's that simple. It's a matter of the "correct" or "incorrent" answer to this question. NO EXCEPTIONS. The people above who gave a different alternative are just wrong. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.170.127 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life is certainly simple for the dogmatic. Deor (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And your authority for this rather dubious and over-assertive assertion is ...? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point unmentioned so far is that, to my most English-English of ears, "acting silly" is rather odd. I prefer "being silly" or "acting in a silly way." As to the original point, I think the problem is definitely caused by the use of the word "and", which confuses things terribly. "Along with" is OK, or "as well as". As soon as you have "and", the parenthetical nature of the reference to the sidekick is lost or obscured. Further, as far as I can see, unless John is just one of several sidekicks, the use of a comma before his name is not really optional. Consider the difference between the two sentences: i) "James, as well as his wife Jane, speaks Italian." ii) "James, as well as his wife, Jane, speaks Italian." The former surely suggests James is a polygamist. Wife ought to be restrictive, or defining, so a comma is needed. But as with all these things, much depends on the reader. Writing is there to be read, not to be written. A careful writer will know the audience and put together a text accordingly. In many circumstances, these intricacies can be safely glossed over.-86.139.236.224 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Question

How can 「（日付）を以って（動詞）」 be translated? Same as 「（日付）に（動詞）」？--ChokinBako (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(日付）を以って can be translated as 'as of 日付'. Oda Mari (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed you didn't check Eijirō, the one dictionary I would take to a desert island if I was planning to do Japanese-English translation work there. It suggests "as of" or "effective". -- BenRG (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Eijiro all the time, lar, on www.alc.co.jp, but it only gave two examples of the use of '以って', and both translations did not seem applicable to the context of the text I am working on. Oda Mari's translation was perfect.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accents of Hitchcock and Karloff

Boris Karloff and Alfred Hitchcock were born in London a few years apart, but had quite distinctively different accents, but both sound British to American ears. Was this difference of dialect or accent due to the different neighborhoods they were from, or to different social class of their parents? Is there a name for the typical British English of each of these celebrities? Karloff sounded (except when he was doing a dialect role) a bit upscale from Hitchcock.Here is a 1964 interview with Hitchcock: [1] , and here he is introducing a TV episode [2]. Here is Karloff, at 1:30 introducing a TV show:[3] , and at 2:30 [4] introducing another episode. Edison (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"British English" as a term refers to the way in which the form of English used in Britain differs in spelling, vocabulary, grammar and punctuation from that used elsewhere. It shouldn't really be used to describe accents. People in Britain don't have "British accents"; they have English, Scottish, Welsh accents etc as applicable. What Americans tend to think of when they talk about a "Bridish accent" is almost invariably an English accent, either RP or some godawful version of cockney.

I'd agree that Hitchcock has a slightly lower-middle-class drawl compared to Karloff, but bear in mind that actors often undergo vocal training to speak with a kind of RADA accent, whereas directors do not. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, it can hardly be due to the different neighborhoods they were from, as it seems that Hitchcock went to school in Enfield, where Karloff (whose real name was Pratt) grew up. I do think different social class is at the nub of this question. Karloff went to two fee-paying schools, Uppingham and Merchant Taylors', Northwood, after Enfield Grammar School, and his brothers went on to became diplomats. Hitchcock, the grocer's son, had only his grammar school, St Ignatius', which must have had less chance of turning him out as a polished young gent. Strawless (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful information. Edison (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze

Why do people insist on translating 'Kamikaze' as 'God of the Wind', when 'Kaze' is the main part of this word, therefore meaning 'Wind of the Gods'? If it was 'God of the Wind', it would be 'Kazekami'. Historically, 'Wind of the Gods' would make sense, considering it referred originally to the typhoon that repelled the Mongol invasion in the 13th Century. Any thoughts on this?--ChokinBako (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen it translated as "divine wind." Who are these people who translate it as "God of the Wind"? Deor (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people say it, and seen it on the odd TV documentary - admittedly, old ones.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the word is derived from the ideas and beliefs of Shintoism which generally believe that spirits called kami. Using this knowledge, you can see that what the word kamikaze is really trying to describe is the spirit or god that is in the wind; not the wind that is from the gods, as the wind is the spirit itself. As to why it is written in this order, it probably has something to do with the grammatical order of Japanese, which I am not fully familiar with. Yakeyglee (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, grammatically, it would mean the 'Wind from the Gods'. When a noun comes at the end of a compound word in Japanese, that word becomes the main subject (for want of a better word) of the compound. Therefore, in 'kamikaze', it is the 'wind' that we are talking about. This is the same in English. When we talk of 'penfriend', we mean a friend that communicates with us by the pen, not a friend who is actually a pen.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, you won't go far wrong if you translate each component into English and keep them in the same order. kami-kaze = god-wind; Tô-kyô = East Capital. This is not true of (for example) Arabic or Vietnamese. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Merchant Ships

What is the meaning of 'maru', the word that comes after the name of practically every merchant ship in Japan? One of my friends who is a sailor asked me this tonight, and I couldn't answer. 'Circle' did not quite convince him. Any ideas?--ChokinBako (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some theories, see Japanese ship naming conventions#Maru. Deor (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult question. The oldest citation is from an 1187 text. There are a number of suggested etymologies, but no general consensus:

maro (麿, "I") > maru; originally used to refer to oneself, gradually changed to refer to things near oneself as a term of endearment
personification (again from maro (麿, "I"))
from maro (麿), a suffix to a boys name
from the word for stripped wood (maruta 丸太) used in boat construction
from toimaru (問丸), medieval tradesmen on boats

Nothing definite, but FYI. Bendono (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I can't believe it's such a mystery! Thanks!--ChokinBako (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]