Language desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

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 16

Classification of 沐

Hi, can anyone tell me which "radical" the character 沐 is traditionally classified under in Chinese dictionaries? 86.176.214.217 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the "water" radical (氵 or 水). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:沐 agrees. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can anyone give an example of a common Chinese character that, in dictionaries, is listed under a "radical" that is a phonetic rather than semantic component of the character? 86.179.4.189 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article "Section headers of a Chinese dictionary", the section headers in the dictionary Shuowen Jiezi "were component parts found in different characters and often reflecting some common semantic or phonetic characteristic".

—Wavelength (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In these dictionaries, characters are generally listed under the "first" radical (starting at the upper left); this is what determines it, rather than which radical is semantic or phonetic. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of two-radical characters (both left-right and top-bottom) the "first" radical is the semantic component. Off the top of my head I can't think of any exceptions right now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question was prompted by a passage at Radical (Chinese character) which says:

"There is a widespread perception that these section headers are always, by definition, semantic in their role, but this is not always the case. For example, 木 in 沐 is a phonetic element, not a radical."

This implies that 沐 is classified under 木, which seemed rather unlikely to me and seems to have been confirmed not to be the case. If there is no correct example to replace it with then I am stumped... 86.176.209.11 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what the problem is. By "section headers" they mean the elements which can be used as radicals, not necessarily that they are sorted under that radical in that particular character. The statement is true: 木 is one of the 214 radicals, but in 沐 it is not a radical, it's a phonetic. Now, that one's trivial to read because of the left-right order. Let's see if I can find a better example. — kwami (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, 杢 is listed under radical 木, but that's really the phonetic. But that's not a Chinese character.

某 is also listed under 木, despite both components being potential radicals. But neither is a phonetic. Same is true of 杲 & 杳, which are listed under 'sun' in my dictionary but under 'tree' on Wikt. — kwami (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kwami, I think you are absolutely correct about what that passage actually means. Because it seems perilously easy to misunderstand, I have tried to clarify the wording. Of course, if you or anyone can do a better job then please go ahead. 86.160.216.39 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"except" vs. "except for"

Hello. I want to know which is correct, "except", or "except for" because I've seen both usage many times. 50.19.78.29 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for {"except for" usage} on Google gave me this site [1], which indicates that both are correct, and in most cases can be interchanged (although those following the "omit needless words" style guide would likely prefer "except"). However, it also gives examples where they cannot be substituted - although as a native (US) English speaker, I think the examples given are more attributed to style issues than grammatical prohibitions (e.g. I, personally, see no problems with the construction "except for when"). -- 174.31.207.68 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that website's recommendations. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French video

Could someone possibly transcribe or preferably translate any references to refugees from Spain contained within this video, in the last section of the 1919-1939 bit. My French is not good enough! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for a few key phrases and found the full text here: http://www.schools.manatee.k12.fl.us/webdisk/762DRENCKER/film_transcript.pdf, p. 23. Here's a rough translation of the passages you requested:

The next decade marked a material and psychological retreat. When the economic crisis hit France in the fall of 1931, xenophobia spread to all the social strata. By 1932, a law set quotas on the employment of foreigners in industry. Many unemployed workers were sent back: the Portuguese because they were the last to arrive and Poles by the trainload.

As they left amid general indifference, other foreigners sought refuge in France: anti-Nazis, Jews from Germany and central and eastern Europe, and Spanish Republicans. The welcome was more than cold, and antisemitism worsened. Those who were allowed to live in France found work with difficulty. Under pressure from doctors, lawyers, and musicians, the parliament passed "national preference" laws that prohibited the refugees from practicing these professions.

The Popular Front served as a respite. The foreigners participated in strikes and demonstrations in the summer of 1936. For several months, the pace of individual deportations diminished, and group repatriations were suspended.

But in 1938, decrees by the Daladier government renewed the attack on foreigners designated as "undesirable" and created internment camps.

And when the defeated Spanish Republican soldiers crossed the border in February 1939, they found themselves in camps hastily opened on the beaches around Perpignan. The homeland of the Rights of Man seemed to have forgotten its ideals.

Hope that helps! Lesgles (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]