Language desk
< August 10	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 12 >

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 11

Mouseover pop-up CHN-ENG translator for Internet Explorer?

Hi everyone, I use the Perapera-kun add-on for CHN-ENG translation in Firefox. It lets you hover your mouse over hanzi to see the meaning. However, some sites in China don't work with Firefox (for example, certain online banks) and I was wondering if anyone knew of an add-on for IE with similar mouseover translation functionality. I haven't been able to find one... Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Masked Booby (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving this question to the Computing desk, please post replies there. Falconus^{p t c} 03:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For common words in a proper noun, do you convert between American and British spellings?

Say you have a name "Centre for ..." in its original British spelling, do you change it to "Center" when writing for American readers? Thanks. --173.49.12.209 (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENGVAR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, you don't convert. There isn't any need to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ought to be the rule. But how often is the United States Secretary or Department of Defense spelt by the media as Defence for UK, Australian and some other Commonwealth readerships. I'm sure the opposite would apply for American and Canadian readerships in relation to UK or Australian institutions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing much wrong with that, either. It's of truly infinitesimal significance, and not worth mentioning, never mind getting worked up over. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, editors based in England and sometimes other Commonwealth countries convert the spellings of American proper nouns, whereas American editors do not convert the spellings of Commonwealth proper nouns. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say I've noticed the same, too. Brits are much more sensitive to spelling differences than Americans are. In any case, however, it's an editorial decision and of little consequence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put it as "Brits are more sensitive to spelling differences". A person who is sensitive to spelling differences should spell proper names as they are spelled, not as the component common words are spelled in that person's dialect. To do otherwise is an error, and a person sensitive to spelling differences should not make it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That said, my professional editorial training (in the UK) taught me that while differentially spelled words in general prose should be converted where necessary to the relevant local convention, those that are part of proper names should not. If, say, editing a US-originated piece for UK publication, I would have rewritten

"The US Department of Defense has allocated 3,000 troops to the defense of Cityville" as

"The US Department of Defense has allocated 3,000 troops to the defence of Cityville."

My copy of Judith Butcher's Copy-Editing: The Cambridge Handbook (CUP 2nd Ed 1981) advises (Section 6.10 - Parochialisms and Stereotypes, p103) "Spell American proper names correctly, e.g. Pearl Harbor, Lincoln Center." She goes on to discuss in what circumstances spellings and idioms are better left as is, changed, or avoided altogether. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 90.201.110.129 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice to see. However, as an inveterate reader of the The Economist, I am certain that they respell US proper nouns, to my mild annoyance. Marco polo (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Most people don't blink at renaming Moscow or Rome (for example) for their own audiences, and yet I, as many, would prefer such changes not be made for localisation of English for English. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. One point is that it's not a translation, because it's the same language. To change a place name in an English-speaking country, when speaking English, is disrespectful. Just don't do it.

But even from other languages, in general, only place names that have been known in English for quite a long time are ever translated. We say Rome and Paris and Turin (actually the last one is correct in local dialect, I think) but no one translates Banja Luka. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But then we have cases right here in Wikipedia where we see Livorno traditionally called Leghorn in English. I doubt if anybody in the US ever calls it Leghorn. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weird one — no, I would never call it Leghorn. Can't help hearing "boy, I say boy..." in my head. Just the same, it is a place name known in English for quite a long time, even if not as well-known as Paris or Rome, so not really a counterexample. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) And I doubt if many people in the UK now call it Leghorn, but since that name was, over the centuries, used in many English-language works of literature and travel, some classics and still read, it's as well to know that it was used.

Another of my professional reference works, The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (Clarendon Press 1981) has the entry "Leghorn, former English name for Italian port Livorno . . .", implying that even 30 years ago the Anglicization was considered obsolete. (The same work specifies capital 'A' and 'z' not 's' for "Anglicization", by the way!) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.65 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Leghorn" is still used both in the UK and the US, in the context of real, as well as cartoon, chickens. Never wondered about the derivation, Ah say the derivation, Trovatore? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the BBC programme "Who do you think you are" on Wednesday night, a 16th century map of the Mediterranean was shown, with Livorno labelled as "Ligorno". And that's the name I recognised, not "Leghorn" which I associate with a cartoon character! So the Italian name is/was Ligorno. Just mentioning it here for completeness really.--TammyMoet (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same logic for the Bombay-Mumbai change and the Burma-Myanmar change? Googlemeister (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the first; not the second, I think. As I understand it, both Burma and Myanmar are valid in Burmese, but one is more formal than the other (not sure which). There's a political component to the choice — the current repressive regime prefers Myanmar, so you can use Burma to indicate your disapproval of that regime. --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really shouldn't be down to individuals' approval of regimes or lack thereof. Governnments recognise other governments; what individuals think about it is neither here nor there. Few approved of Ian Smith's regime in Southern Rhodesia and even fewer approve of Mugabe's regime, yet every one talks about Zimbabwe and Harare, rather than S.R. and Salisbury. Few approved of the Chinese regime until they realised it was economically disadvantageous to continue that line; so they dumped their old friend Taiwan and started calling Peking Beijing. That was justified as being respectful to the Chinese by using a better approximation of the way they say it. But if the economic issue had not forced our hand, we'd still be happy being disrespectful and calling it Peking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. What a government says about something counts for nothing with me. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May you always hold true to that sentiment, Trovatore. I wish you the best of luck. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When are -tion and -ing nouns countable? What is the general rule?

Some nouns, like those of the -tion and -ing endings, can be used in both singular and plural forms, when referring to something abstract. It seems that whether you write -tions and -ings instead of -tion and -ing depends on the senses in which the words are used. What is the general rule? --173.49.12.209 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could say "two, three, four Xs" and it doesn't sound ridiculous, the noun is countable. Otherwise, it's not.

For example: "Two explanations" is countable and fine, "two informations" is wrong. And yes, it does depend on the sense of the word. Some words can be either countable or uncountable, depending on context. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In German, information is countable (as in "pieces of information"). If there is a general rule, it has to explain why "two informations" sounds ridiculous in English but not in German. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is because English speakers never say that. Also, the English word "information" never has the same sense that the German word does when the German word is used countably. English speakers used another word for that sense: "message". And it is indeed countable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never? Well, hardly ever. wikt:informations Card Zero (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was going to say: information in the sense of "indictment, more or less" is probably countable. It's not used in California, but apparently is in New York, if we're to believe Law and Order. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm getting ever further off the original question, but now that I think about it the correct translation into California law is probably not indictment. Maybe complaint? --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the G&S reference. LadyofShalott 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal warrant to or from or...?

Does a company hold a royal warrant to or from a person? I am uncertain about the formulation of this sentence:

"The company holds a royal warrant to/from Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom."

--Peoplefromarizona (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, according to my reading of Royal Warrant of Appointment (United Kingdom), one would say "The company holds a royal warrant by appointment to ..." whichever royal it was the issued the warrant. If that helps. The key seems to be that it is a warrant of appointment to someone or other. Reducing it merely to a royal warrant, without the appointment bit, leaves you in a limbo in which you can make up your own rules. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the appointment is to but the warrant is from. In less exalted contexts you might say "I got a letter from the Dean appointing me to a committee." —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italics in spoken words

In what I've read, spoken words never seem to be put it bold, but constructions like "Oh, you meant that John Brown" or "Turn left you said" are put in italics/emphasis. Is this regular elsewhere? If so, how long has this been the case? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly now the most usual method, as our article Emphasis (typography) describes (along with instances of several other methods), and has, I'm pretty sure, been so for at least a couple of centuries, but that article doesn't go into the details of dates.

My suspicion is that it probably dates back as far as the 15th century and the introduction of printing in Europe (see History of Western typography), and gradually won out over alternatives (such as underlining or bold) because it was

(i) easier to carry out without error, italic letters being easier to distinguish from regular type than bold ones when typesetting with lead sorts, and underlining being a very fiddly process;

(ii) cheaper because both regular and italic fonts were more commonly used than bold and SMALL CAPITALS, so a small print-shop would have had italics more readily available in the correct sizes;

(iii) created sufficient contrast but not too much, which would have made reading emphasis- or quote-laden writing harder on the eye; and

(iv) allowed the use of boldface, etc, for other purposes. Sometimes in human activities a concensus usage emerges without anyone having officially decided on it.

Incidentally, in long passages set in italics, emphasis, etc, is usually created by reversing the process and using regular type. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.65 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any case when they applied the same rule but using bold type? It should work, if emphasis is just about contrast.Quest09 (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A totally speculative guess of mine: italics need less ink than bold or underlining. Maybe that was an issue back in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.196.229 (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been, because in Letterpress printing, the tiny reduction in ink used by italics would have been far outweighed by other inefficiencies consuming ink, which in itself was not an expensive material compared to, say, paper. (Unlike today's insanely expensive computer printer cartridges.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.142 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]