Language desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

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 6

Chinese negation of 吃

If someone asked me 你吃了吗？ How would I negate that, 没 or 不? I'm leaning towards 没. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would say "还没", "没吃", or "没有" (literally, respectively, "Have not yet", "Have not eaten" and "Have not had"). I conceive of the difference between 没 and 不 as the former denoting "not existing or possessing", whereas the latter denoting "not logically true". 没 can usually be followed by 有 to make 没有, which means something is not located here, is not within someone's possession, or has not happened. By contrast 不 cannot be followed by 有 but can usually be followed by 是, to make 不是, which is the logcal "No", and means "is not" or "do not".

In this specific context, 没吃 means "have not eaten", whereas 不吃 means "do not eat". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it more simply, the question is asking about a past event (I know, Chinese doesn't have grammatical tense, but still), and 没 is used to negate the past (没 is like "didn't", 不 is like "don't"). The only context where I could imagine using 不 in response to this question would be if you aren't planning on eating anything today, in which case you might say "我不吃". (But that is offering too much information anyway; in my experience 你吃饭了吗 is like "how's it going" in English, they don't actually want to know the real answer!) rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to be more specific than "我不吃" if referring to a future meal. "我不吃" is "I don't eat", as in "I don't eat lunch", rather than "I don't plan to eat lunch today".

Whether the person is actually interested in your meal habits depends on the context. If it is while running into a neighbour or friend on the street or alleyway, then it might just be "hello", but in other contexts it may be a genuine question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a serious question, it is just a way to start the talk, like "How are you doing". You need not to answer it.--刻意(Kèyì) 14:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ending sentence with ellipses in a quotation

What would be the proper form for punctuation in a sentence which contains a quotation that ends with ellipses? The ellipses in the quote are used to imply the speaker's voice trailing off as he spoke. Can ellipses end a sentence inside the quotes, or would a comma-quote-period be required? For example:

He said "blah blah blah..."
He said "blah blah blah...".
He said "blah blah blah...,".

Or something else? Or is it just bad form to use ellipses in this way? Arakunem^Talk 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any justification for a comma at all - so that's out. I'd always choose the second option. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comma should never be included. The second option is standard in the United Kingdom and other countries following a British-derived standard, such as Australia. ~~The first option is standard in the United States.~~ In the United States, the standard would be to add a period to the three points of the ellipsis but to set that period within the right quotation mark. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies! Would the comma be required if the sentence continued, or would it supplant the ellipses?

He said "Blah blah blah...," then turned away from the podium. Arakunem^Talk 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even as an American, I'd probably go with your second option. I'd also put the comma outside the quotes, if for no other reason than aesthetics: "He said "Blah blah blah...", then turned away from the podium". Lexicografía (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicografía, I am an American, and in my personal writing, I too put all punctuation that doesn't belong to a quote outside the quotation marks. However, that is not standard style in the United States. In my work as a professional editor, I always put periods and commas inside quotation marks, since that is the style preferred by my employer and by virtually every U.S. publisher. Marco polo (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ellipsis#In English. A space before the ellipsis indicates that the third "blah" is a complete word, whereas an ellipsis following immediately, without a space, indicates that the third "blah" is the beginning of a word, perhaps *"blahsko".

—Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rule more honoured in the breach than the observance, if WP articles are any guide. A great many examples of ellipses following complete words (and that's the vast majority of ellipses) do not have a space in between. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought

The following sort of expression is reasonably common:

I would have thought that most people in those days didn't have a phone.

When the speaker says "I would have thought ...", surely they mean "I definitely think ...". No? Is it always perceived as a polite or euphemistic way of saying that, or is it really what it purports to be, an expression of some degree of uncertainty or non-categoricality?

On the face of it, it could even be interpreted as "Had some condition applied, I would have thought that; but since it didn't, I don't think that". But I doubt anyone actually thinks the speaker is saying "I don't think that ..." - rather, exactly the opposite.

The other aspect of this question is how the conditional mood is often extended to the object of the opening verb, so we get:

I would have thought that most people in those days wouldn't have had a phone.

A sort of double conditional. Is this legit? I can't really see why we'd need two "would have"s.

Any thoughts? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first question, I would have thought usually implies, well, what you 'would have thought', had new information or an alternate scenario not come up, e.g. "I would've thought that he would have chosen the green one, but looks like he went with red". I don't know why you have to use the conditional twice, but it sounds a little awkward if you don't. Lexicografía (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the conditional in the second clause is correct only when the second clause describes an action subsequent to the thought described by "would have thought", but in that case, I think that a present/future conditional rather than a perfect conditional would be more correct. That is, from an editorial standpoint, I think the correct versions of the statements above are as follows:

"I would have thought that most people in those days didn't have a phone."
"I would have thought that he would choose the green one."

Marco polo (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lexicografia: Here are a large number of live examples where "I would have thought" seems to mean, euphemistically, "I do definitely think now", rather than what I would have thought had not the alternate scenario presented itself. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. That strikes me as a strange usage (just a roundabout way of saying "I think"), but alright. Lexicografía (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a polite conditional. In the same way, saying "I'd love it if you'd pass the salt" is more polite than the indicative "I want you to pass the salt", which is itself more polite than the imperative "Pass the salt". Embedding an opinion in a conditional expression reduces its force, and that suggests humility, non-aggression, etc. LANTZY ^TALK 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we can create a little hierarchy from most to least forceful: "I think..." > "I would think..." > "I would have thought...". The indicative is stronger than the conditional, and the conditional is stronger than the counterfactual past conditional (or however grammarians term it). All three express (or can express) a currently-held belief. LANTZY ^TALK 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Those all seem to be expressions of slight doubt, not of certitude. I looked at the first five:

Clio the Muse is surprised that Dismas finds Are You Being Served hilarious without it being marred by the arguably homophobic character of Mr. Humphries. (Although Clio seems to conflate Dismas with all Americans, so this one is a bit subtle.)
Matt Deres would have thought he could get hold of a particular kind of form, but he can't.
Wirbelwind would have thought you rinse out mouthwash, but is confused by some stupid website.
173.179.59.66 would have thought something or other about water pressure, but apparently not.
Dbfirs would have thought that clocks should use a rigid support instead of a spring to improve accuracy in some way. He might think he's right, but I wouldn't say he's certain of it, particularly in light of the information that springs are in fact used.

213.122.35.14 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think some of those are at least arguable. But I don't plan to start such an argument. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-shadow?

I'm looking for a word to succinctly denominate this phenomenon: Light is reflected by something shiny, perhaps a chandelier or a pair of eyeglasses or a mirror, and falls in a little pattern upon a distant surface. An observer may notice this pattern, drifting back and forth across the wall, and not be able to determine its source. In my family we have several made-up words for these things, for instance "krones" and "wallygoggles", but I am searching for a word (more precisely, a countable noun) that would be generally understood, or at least capable of being looked up in a dictionary. Perhaps there is a word in a language other than English. I would welcome any suggestion. The closest I can come is "reflection", which is completely inadequate. LANTZY ^TALK 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caustic (optics), glare, luminance, radiance. 92.15.18.168 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone or something deleted most of my answer above - now restored. 92.15.18.168 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Heliograph (which uses your "wallygoggles" to send Morse code messages) uses the word "sunbeam", which is rather charming. "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam". Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkle, sun-sparkles? 92.15.11.224 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refraction? Refractive shimmer? Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This assortment of words might help: Source for thesaurus terms relating to the word "chimera". I think "dancing light" might suggest the phenomena. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms for sparkle include coruscation, dazzle, flash, flicker, gleam, glimmer, glint, glisten, glitz, glow, scintillation, shimmer, and twinkle. 92.28.255.24 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would much more value a personal, family, coinage such as "krones" but if you want to have one you can point to in a dictionary then the Scots "glaik" might suit you, "The rising sun was…sprinkling the floor of the forest-aisles with glaiks and gleams." John Galt (novelist) Lawrie Todd (1830) meltBanana 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like "glaik". It's curious how Scots often seems to plug up lexical lacunae in English. The word "curmur", for instance. LANTZY ^TALK 04:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lexical lacumae: you've never heard of borborygmus then. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]