Language desk
< August 9	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 11 >

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.

August 10

'hotel reservation OP'?

Resolved

A colleague of mine in China is asking what 'hotel reservation OP' means. I have no idea and Googling just gets me hotel reservations. Does anyone know? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only item on OP that looks even marginally plausible is "operating procedure". More context would help. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that's right, used in a business context for the specific procedure used by staff when a customer wishes to reserve a room. I get a few Google hits for "reservation SOP" where SOP="standard operating procedure", which would have a similar meaning.[1][2] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the background of a military historian, 'OP' meant 'operating procedures' to me straight away. I just hesitated to answer as such, given its use here in the field of hotels, but it does make perfect sense - thanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the grammar in section of article

I am not an English speaking person. Therefore, will somebody please check if the grammar is correct or not in the section that I have written in the article Steinway & Sons: The section "Special designs". If you find any mistakes, fill free to correct the mistakes. Thank you. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few minor grammatical improvements and corrected one spelling error. I suspect, however, that the spelling correction has merely altered from U.S. correct spelling to British correct spelling. "molded" is now spelled "moulded". Gurumaister (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it's an "American and German" manufacturer, so if WP:TIES applies, then it's in the direction of American spelling. If TIES does not apply, then it should be left in the variety it has been in for a long time, if that can be identified. I haven't made a strong effort to identify it but I did see one "ize" word. I think you should put it back to molded. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a well written piece in spite of a couple of very minor errors. In your question "fill free..." should be "feel free...". :-) Richard Avery (talk)

Thank you very much to Gurumaister and Richard Avery. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question

There was a sentence I decided to copyedit, but I'm having trouble with the commas. It was:

"She is the founder of the production company "X", and along with boyfriend "Y" she is a co-owner of "Z".

I changed it to:

"She is the founder of the production company "X", and along with boyfriend "Y", a co-owner of "Z".

First, do you spot some grammatical problems? Second, how should I use the commas? After "X" or "and"? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try: "She is the founder of the production company "X", and along with boyfriend "Y" is a co-owner of "Z".

That looks fine but is there really a great problem with my version? I also wanted to ask about this:

"She has written a series of columns for BBC, is a social activist, a television presenter, and a regular stage performer." Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following:

"She is the founder of the production company X and, along with boyfriend Y, a co-owner of Z."
"She has written a series of columns for BBC, and is also a social activist, a television presenter, and a regular stage performer."

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commas not in lists are used as if they were weak parentheses. The sentence, if written with parentheses, would be She is the founder of the production company "X" (and (along with boyfriend "Y") she is a co-owner of "Z") so, with commas, the last being replaced by a sentence-final period, it should read:

She is the founder of the production company "X", and, along with boyfriend "Y", she is a co-owner of "Z".

μηδείς (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that without the first comma, like JackLee’s version. (Additionally, since the partner is mentioned, "co-" is probably unnecessary.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Medeis above if you want to make full use of commas, but they are often omitted (in my opinion to the detriment of readability, but opinions vary). The BBC needs a definite article. Dbfirs 22:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the definite article in front of BBC. Missed that. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I have identified two nested phrases, the broader of which ends coincidentally with the entire sentence. Since the final period actually covers both the closing of the sentence as a whole and the external embedded phrase, one could potentially settle with the simpler "She is the founder of the production company 'X' and, along with boyfriend 'Y', she is a co-owner of 'Z'." This amounts to a matter of emphasis. I do think the original doubly embedded phrase is, with the last comma converted to a full stop, given the circumstances, clearer. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "tolerasty" mean?

In a slashdot discussion on the UK riots someone said

just some yobs who believe they can do what you want because the police won't stop them. multiculturalism and tolerasty at its best.

I thought it was a mistake and they meant "toleration", but the person was then flamed by several people saying "tolerasty is a concept invented by the neo-nazis", and "only a racist would use that word", etc.

It obviously means something to these people but it isn't in my dictionary - which if it is a concept invented by neo-nazis isn't a surprise. What does it mean? -- Q Chris (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd venture a guess that it's a portmanteau of toleration and pederasty. No such user (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what is the meaning and in what context would it be used. It does not appear to be an obvious portmanteau to me, in that knowing the two words does not make the meaning self-explanatory . -- Q Chris (talk)

This uses it and identifies that root. Would seem immigration-related apologism (in a negative sense). (edit: Just to clarify, I mean people who are perceived to be too lax on immigration.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so it is really just an insult - like calling people who support racial equality "N. Lovers". -- Q Chris (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still very confused what it could mean. Are tolerasts people who like tolerance in the same way that pederasts like paedos . If so, that is the least semantically meaningful portmanteau I have ever seen written in English.--Lgriot (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess from the answers so far is that it is just an insult rather than any clever portmanteau, like saying "the so called tolerant people who really just lust after young black boys". -- Q Chris (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bigot's effort to re-define tolerance as a perversion: like calling inheritance taxes "death taxes". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable philology does not prove rhetorical invalidity. Tolerasty is a particularly silly word, as a word. But there is nothing wrong with calling inheritance taxes death taxes unless you are a full blown socialist incapable of criticizing any tax. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with tolerasty is that it doesn't really make any sense, and it implies that a virtue, tolerance, is really a vice. The problem with death tax is slightly different. It is misleading. The term implies that death itself is taxed. Since everyone dies, this creates a fear among people that their $20,000 bequest to each child will be taxed away. Whereas in the United States, where this term is used by conservatives, the estate tax applies only to estates of over $5,000,000. So it is not death that it is taxed. It is bequeathed estates of over $5,000,000. For this reason, the term death tax is inaccurate, misleading, and demagogic. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, death is still taxed in the US, it is just a progressive system where the first step is at the $5M level (or whatever it happens to be, it doesn't apply to me so I don't keep current). Googlemeister (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't death that's taxed; it's the estate, or bequest. If you donate your $5 million plus to charity, you die and pay no tax. Marco polo (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The technical term, by the way, is dysphemism. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tolerance per se is not a virtue. There are quite a few things one should be proud not to tolerate in the least. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, tolerance per se is not a vice. There are quite a few things that one should be proud to tolerate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I mean it. Really. Wow. Whereas I find it difficult even to qualify someone's statement, unless, like Marco polo above, they have actually made an implicitly false statement, such as over-generously identifying tolerance itself as a virtue, you, JackofOz, have the ability to contradict things which have neither been said nor anywhere implied. Wow. You can gainsay the non-existent, contradict that which has not been dicted, and stand in opposition to the admittedly unreal. Wow! Double-you owe double-you. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er... *scratches head* What? JackofOz's reply was just as cryptic as yours. Neither contradicts the other. There's a thing called 'the middle'. If nothing was implied, why are you reacting so? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to an actual statement of Marco polo, who identified tolerance as a virtue above in this thread. (My assumption is that he spoke loosely, and agrees with my qualification.) But Jackofoz simply proposed the "converse" of my statement without bothering even to consider whether I or anyone else had either said or implied that no tolerance was virtuous. We hadn't. Oz's contrarian moralistic nonsense is typical and doesn't surprise me. I don't think documenting it is helpful, but if you want diffs pointing out his holier than thou hypocrisy let me know and I will provide them. Until then, read both his and mine and everyone's comments in the widest context and they will make less unsense. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am intolerant of people leaving their daily bags of garbage on my doorstep. I'm ashamed of my intolerance but I am unable to be more open-minded about this. It must be my cultural middle-class brainwashing.

Any time you make up a new term, you get to define it. No one has any way of knowing what the new term means except those utilizing lines of communication particular to the originators of the new term. There are often inbuilt clues to what the new term means, lending plausibility to the term as it is used. And the new term is used authoritatively as though the definition of the new term was recognized by all, when in fact it may not be widely recognized at all. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you intended to reply to Marco Polo, you failed to communicate this in any way. Note how I have indented this one more than your post, Medeis, and put it below your comment with no outdented comments inbetween. I also used your name, to avoid all confusion. Since you did none of these to indicate you were 'replying' to Marco Polo, your comment looked like a pointlessly cryptic attempt to soapbox, to which Jack replied. Given that you have soapboxy comments all over these pages, that wouldn't be surprising. Jack's so-called 'contrarian moralistic nonsense' is usually in line with the goals and principles of the Wikipedia community, which usually rewards unacceptable behaviour with refusal to allow participation. You can rail against that all you want, like a teenager who thinks it's so unfair and hypocritical that their parents won't let them do whatever they want, but ultimately Wikipedia has rules. Not soapboxing is one. WP:NPOV is another, which tends to cause good, established users to want to provide balance for any potentially biased or misleading statement. If you don't want people replying to what you say, post your words on a blog and disable comments. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wow - nobody could accuse some of the wikipedia editors here of tolerasty. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a general point about tolerance not being an absolute good, 82..., and not singling Marco polo out for mere gainsaying, as was JackofOz when he chose to contradict a point that no one had made. My comment would have had an entirely different significance had I made it all about scoring points on Marco polo for being wrong rather than addressing the subject impersonally. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I was reminding readers that tolerance is also not an absolute bad. It is neither always good nor always bad. You left that latter possibility open. End of point. For you to then get into discussion of my "contrarian moralistic nonsense" is all about me personally, and not about the topic of this discussion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am perfectly happy with that description. You saw an "opening" and went for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My focus was on an opening that needed to be closed. It was and is immaterial to me who left it open. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Italian for history research

I want to learn Italian so I can read scholarly books and articles written in this language. Is there a good textbook with the specific purpose of Italian for reading knowledge? Jannach's did wonders for my German, and I'm hoping there's an equivalent for Italian. Thanks, --Think Fast (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about modern secondary sources, or primary sources from say the 15 century? Basically, do you need modern Italian or one of the more archaic variants? Googlemeister (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's modern secondary sources. --Think Fast (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

italiano

Hello everybody. I am a student of la bella lingua italiana :) and an (beginning) amateur linguist. I also speak Spanish, and one thing I notice is that the Italian rolled r's, or trills i believe their properly called, (in particular the geminated trills, for example, in birra) are lighter and prettier than the Spanish trills. When thinking of words to describe each, 'delicate' and 'fluttery' come to mind for the Italian, but the only thing I can think of for the Spanish is 'motorboat'. Is this a real, recognised difference? Can someone shed some light on what I'm noticing? Grazie mille ! 186.3.16.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This question was just addressed here within the last month or two. Since I only understand but cannot speak Italian, I did not then comment. Perhaps someone who then did can a link thither provide? μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re their respective native languages:

The Italians sing it,

The Germans shout it,

The British spit it,

The Americans chew it,

And the French speak it

And don't ask, because I can't remember where I read this. --Lgriot (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's that thread, from June 17: [3], but I can't say it went into the heart of the matter. No such user (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polishing up spelling

What's up with Polish last names? Yvonne Strahovski's real last name is spelled Strzechowski, but her stage name is apparently closer to the actual pronunciation. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out what your question means. Polish last names follow the conventions of Polish orthography, which are considerably more straightforward than those of English or French. They are of course different from either of these. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Early life" section of the article, which states, "She adopted the more phonetic spelling of Strahovski as her stage name at Chuck producer Josh Schwartz's behest for the sake of easier pronunciation." The authentic Polish pronunciation is [stʂɛˈxɔfskʲi], roughly stsheh-KHOF-ski, which won't readily come to the minds of many English speakers when they read "Strzechowski", unless they know some Polish. But if you do know some Polish, then the pronunciation of Strzechowski is obvious. --Theurgist (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, it's a stage name, nothing specifically to do with the fact that it's Polish. Vespine (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, come to think of it, Yvonne is not a Polish name either. Iwona is the polish version, but there's no reason why her Polish parents couldn't have given her a French name, it is a little unusual though. Vespine (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Closer to the actual pronunciation' - depends on who's doing the reading. If you read Polish, then 'Strzechowski' is a 100% accurate representation of the actual pronunciation, whereas if you read only English, then it won't be. Therefore, she changed it to 'Strahovski', which is about as close as one could get using English orthographical rules. The English version is actually not perfect, as it replaces 'rz' with 'r', 'e' with 'a', and 'ch' with 'h', and uses 'v' to represent the 'f' sound which the original 'w' is for. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So ... it's quite some distance from "as close as one could get using English orthographical rules". That would require something like Shchehovsky. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no doubt the lady in question has equated the American 'r' sound (with its retroflexive qualities) with the 'rz' sound in Polish. In combination with the preceding 't', it is easy to see why. The 'e' sound in Polish, depending on the dialect, can sound somewhat closer to the American 'a' in 'man', so this may be why she chose 'a' instead of 'e'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Sorry, I see what you are getting at. No, 't' is dental, while 'rz' is retroflex, and even in proximity they retain these qualities. 'T' + 'rz' do not make /tʃ/ in Polish - at least when spoken carefully. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two related questions I see in what the OP is asking: If the subject of the article is most commonly known by their stage name, we use that as the title of the article, regardless of the official or original spelling of her name. This is true regardless of whether an official steps have (or have not) been taken to file some paperwork to change the name or not (c.f Martin Sheen, who is still Ramon Estevez in private life). The second question is that her birth name is NOT spelled "funny" in Polish. Someone who knows the Polish language and orthography would have no problem pronouncing it. Just because her birth name is spelled in a way that is hard to pronounce for native English speakers means little, excepting that the English speaker doesn't know Polish. English speakers do a terrible job of pronouncing French and Spanish words if they don't know those languages. Polish is not particularly unique in this regard. And sometimes English speakers get it right, with the proper training. American basketball fans should be able to pronounce Mike Krzyzewski pretty close to the original Polish (given the distinct differences in sound systems and phonological rules between English and Polish). --Jayron32 13:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is slightly funny – from a Polish perspective – is that the -ski suffix in her name indicates the masculine gender. If her parents had stayed in Poland, she would be probably known as Iwona Strzechowska (Polish pronunciation: [iˈvɔna stʂɛˈxɔfska]). As for the straightforwardness of Polish orthography, although I would agree that it's better than English or French, it's still possible to misspell her name in Polish as, say, Stszehofska – and retain the original pronunciation. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an rz in my name and I agree in this case it could be replaced with sz. The one thing I've noticed is that over about 20 years I've NEVER heard an English speaker precisely get the "RZ" sound in my name right. They come close, but no one has ever got it spot on. English speakers tend to pronounce it more like ź then ż, even when I try to demonstrate it, the subtlety is lost. They can't quite get the depth right. I also have a wski in my surname and I disagree the w could be replaced with a f. W is a very hard V; the W in Wodka is pronounced precisely the same as the V in Vodka, it could not be fodka, I don't think it's different in the case of wski. Vespine (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's only because in Polish RZ normally is /ʐ/ (the retroflex "zh") and W normally is /v/ as in wodka, and they get devoiced to /ʂ/ and /f/ respectively in word-final position or next to a voiceless consonant - that's a feature of the Polish phonology. So, Polish surname endings -owski and -ewski are transcribed [-ˈɔfskʲi] and [-ˈɛfskʲi]. --Theurgist (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion: It is sometimes possible to misspell a Polish word with a given pronunciation, but I think there are very few cases when you can mispronounce a Polish word with a given spelling. Maybe the only two cases of that kind I can think of are when the stress is not on the penultimate syllable, and extremely rarely when -RZ- is not the digraph ‹rz›, but is instead two separate letters R + Z, as in zamarzać [zaˈmarzat͡ɕ]. I think none of the remaining six digraphs (ch, cz, dz, dź, dż, sz) is ever mirrored in an extant Polish word by a consonant combination (‹ch› can't ever be [t͡s.x], because ‹h› alone doesn't occur outside loanwords, and I don't think there are any loanwords with the [t͡s.x] cluster spelt as ‹ch›). You will of course correct me if I'm wrong. --Theurgist (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theurgist, I generally agree that there is a much lesser risk of mispronouncing a Polish word – if you know the general rules – than misspelling it. However, out of the six digraphs that you mentioned, two – <dz> and <dż> – may be read as separate letters in some words. This may happen in compound words, especially those formed with an od- or pod- prefix, e.g.: odzew (od + zew), odżyć (od + żyć). It is also not true that <h> doesn't occur outside loanwords; it used to represent the voiced velar fricative and only relatively recently it merged with its voiceless counterpart represented by <ch> (some Polish speakers from the former Soviet Union still make the distinction). As for the [t͡s.x] cluster, the only example I can think of is the capital city of South Ossetia, whose name is spelled Cchinwali in Polish. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should've thought about word formation, and should've paid more attention to the second table at Polish orthography, which lists not only ‹dz› and ‹dż›, but also ‹dź›, as capable of being read as two separate letters. It's the same in Bulgarian, where дж and дз usually represent affricate consonants [d͡ʒ, d͡z], but are two separate sounds across morpheme boundaries: надживея (над + живея); надзор (над + зор). Polonisations of foreign scripts may sometimes exhibit [t͡s.x] clusters, but particularly Cchinwali (polonisation of the Georgian placename) doesn't spell the cluster as C + H; it spells the /ts/ as usual as C, and the /x/ as usual as CH. As for my generalisation that there is no H outside loans, I admit I wrote it just from memory, but could you however give some examples of native words with H alone? (Loans needn't always be Latin and Greek loans, e.g. hańba is not a native word, because it comes from Czech hanba; the common Slavic "h" is usually represented as CH, e.g. grzech, chleb.) --Theurgist (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'm really not 100% sure what is meant by "transcribed as [-ˈɔfskʲi]", but I know that if you wrote my surname with ofski instead of owski, I would pronounce it differently. Also I only went to a polish school for one year so my spelling is atrocious, I believe the most common mistake I make is mixing up u and ó and rz and ż, because they DO sound exactly the same in most contexts. My mum's name has a ż in it and mine has an rz, but the sound is the same. But this is getting further off topic. Vespine (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]