Language desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 8 >

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.

November 7

Doctors saying "we'

what is the reason that the doctors and psychiatrists ect. at least in the uk say 'we' - as in "Have we been eating a lot of salty foods reenctly?"" 139.184.30.131 (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of their condescending attitude, a manifestation of the arrogance chip implanted in all junior doctors on Day 1 of their training. Aimed at making the recipient feel guilty and small. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a new issue, nor unique to the UK. Alan King, in the 1960s, told about a doctor visit. Doctor: "How are we feeling today?" King (to himself): "WE??? I thought I was the only one who was sick. Suddenly there's an epidemic." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief section about it in the "We" article - We#The patronizing "we". Roger (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that it was very common in the UK, as I've never heard it used (from the 60s onwards). Mikenorton (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd more or less concur with the first respondent: it's some combination of condescension, archness and/or false companionability. I've never encountered it myself in the Midwestern U.S., but I hear annoyed remarks about it all over the popular culture. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my US ears, that is so condescending as to be insulting. I would probably respond, "I don't know, have you?" Marco polo (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of this bit from Blazing Saddles, which might suggest the relative prevalence of the usage in 1974:

Sheriff Bart: Are we awake?

Jim (prisoner): We're not sure. Are we... black?

Bart: Yes, we are.

Jim: Then we're awake; but we're very confused.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English

The earth _ round the sun (move/moves) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.93.120 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The earth moves round the sun". The earth is singular, and therefore takes the form "moves". (There may be some cases where "the earth" might be taken as a collective noun - although I'm not sure I can think of any - but it is unambiguously singular here.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were a collective, it would still take a singular verb. --ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. In British English, collective nouns are often used with plural verbs (see. Collective noun#Metonymic merging of grammatical number). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"And as the Martians send their rockets in a flanking maneuver, the Earth are using a classic dispersed response..." I think for it to be the Earth with a plural verb form, it would have to indicate a team of some kind. Just "Earth" with a plural verb form could work to indicate all the people on Earth, although I still think "Earthians" or "Earthmen" or similar would be more natural. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "Earthlings" is the correct term? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVED DUPLICATE QUESTION --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese readings

Hi! There are two characters from A World Without Thieves:

Wang Bo (王薄 Wáng Bo?)
Wang Li (王丽 Wáng Li?)

What are the readings of their given names?

Also the Chinese name of CR Airways (Now Hong Kong Airlines) is:

中富航空有限公司 Zhong?fù Hángkōng Yǒuxiàngōngsī

How is "zhong" read?

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without hearing 王薄 spoken I'm not sure if it would be bó or bò (but I feel it's more likely to be the former). 丽 is lì. 中 is zhōng. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Still waiting to hear about Wang Bo... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

薄 has two sounds, bao and bo. Put 薄 and click 検索 at here. You can listen to the pronunciation of two sounds too.But I think this one is bó as the official ja site says it's bo/ボー. Oda Mari (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly from the film, it's bó and lì respectively. You can check for yourself by watching copyright-compliant snippets on Youtube. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it's Bo (second tone) - thanks guys :), then WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese help

I got Mandarin, but what is the Cantonese for the following:

Cathay Pacific City: 國泰城
CR Limited Airways: 中富航空有限公司
CNAC House: 中航大廈

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As they are the official names for companies and organisations, they would be the same in both Mandarin and Cantonese, and any other dialect of Chinese, albeit with a different pronunciation. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for is the Cantonese pronunciation (Yale or Jyutping or both) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary entry for most Chinese characters includes a Cantonese transliteration. If you look up wikt:國#Cantonese, wikt:泰#Cantonese, wikt:城#Cantonese, and so on, you will probably find most of them. Angr (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try Wiktionary and see how it goes. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of Joan II, Countess of Burgundy

What does the motto around the edge of the medieval seal say? I assume it's in Latin. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's a late form of Latin, with much use of abbreviations and words with meanings beyond their ordinary ones. I'm afraid I can't help on this one, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it (clockwise from top) as S’ IOHAN[NA]E D[E]I GRA[TIA] P[F]RANCI[A]E ET NAVAR[RA]E REGIN[AE] CO[M]ITISS[A]E PALAT[INAE]. (The S’ is an abbreviation of sigilla, and the error of P for F in FRANCIAE may be that of the draftsman who drew the seal rather than the actual reading of the seal.) Translation: "The seal of Joan, by the grace of God queen [and?] countess palatine of France and Navarre." Deor (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would read it as "Queen of France and Navarre and Countess Palatine" The countess palatine refering to the the Franche Comte or "free county" of Burgundy, France and Navarre were Kingdoms, and the Free County of Burgundy being a palatine county. See County of Burgundy and Count palatine for some background. She wouldn't have been the countess palatine of France or Navarre, which is why I would make that clear in the translation thereof... --Jayron32 20:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're no doubt right about that. Deor (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. "S. Iohannae, Dei Gratia Francie et Navarre Regina, Comitissa [Burgundie] Palatina", "Seal of Joan, by the grace of God, Queen of France and Navarre, Countess Palatine of Burgundy." Compare: "Elisabeta. D. G. Regina Bohemiae Elecir: Princ: Mag: Britan: Comitissa Palatina Dvcissa Bava: March: Morav: Dvcissa Silesiae" - "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, Queen of Bohemia, Electress, "Princ Mag Britain"(?), Countess Palatine and Duchess of Bavaria, Marquise of Moravia, Duchess of Silesia." --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princ Mag: Britan is probably Prince(ss) Magnum Britain, or Princess of Great Britain. See Elizabeth of Bohemia, AKA the Winter Queen, who is the person in that seal. As a daughter of James VI and I, she would have been refered to as a Princess of Great Britain. There are some other titles in there, like Duchess of Bavaria, Marchioness of Moravia, Duchess of Silesia which were not actually titles held by her husband, but I suspect these were claimed titles, like how the Kings of England claimed to be Kings of France for centuries after the hundred years war concluded... --Jayron32 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Princ Mag: Britan would be Princeps Magnae Britanniae, wouldn't it? With same translation into English. Textorus (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my latin sucks. I was merely taking it from a historical perspective; she was a Princess of Great Britain, so whatever that is in actual, unabbreviated latin I'll have to take your word on. --Jayron32 14:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin is not so great anymore either, but it seems to accord with the present Queen's original Latin titles. Textorus (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the brilliant insights, as usual! I will add the information to the image description page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you asked, but the two shields on there are the arms of France (the one with the fleur de lys) and of Navarre (with the chains). See File:Arms of the Kingdom of France (Ancien).svg (the French Arms prior to the 15th century) and File:Escudo de Navarra (oficial).svg (the arms of Navarre). I don't see the Arms of Burgundy (File:Blason Bourgogne-comté ancien(aigle).svg) in there, but maybe that was considered less imporant than the royal arms. --Jayron32 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moravia and Silesia were subjects of the Bohemian crown in 1620, so those parts may be accurate. It is not clear to me where the claim to Bavarian titles came from. Those would've belonged to Elisabeth of Lorraine at the time.

The County of Burgundy coat of arms with the eagle was abandoned by Joan's father before her birth. She would've used the version with the lion. But it's not there either. The original book also shows a "counter-seal" of Joan, which has three parts, the arms of France, the arms of Navarre, and a third part, which I can't definitively name, but it could be an old coat of arms of Champagne.

As a final note, I don't think it's accurate to refer to that text as "motto". It should be called "legend". --Itinerant1 (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a word

I want a word to describe how well a search engine (like Google) is at providing search results that the users want. I had "accuracy", but that means that the result is very close to the real thing. For example, a measurement of height is accurate if it close to the real height. Since there is no real search result to compare the search engine's result to, how can I claim accuracy? It was suggested that I use "precision", which I think is worse. A measurement of height to the closest millimeter is precise. Rounding it off to the nearest meter is not precise. You cannot round off a search result or refine it to change precision. So, I abandoned that word. I've had fitness, reliability, and robustness suggested. I don't like the sound of fitness. Robustness doesn't really have a single definition that I know of - it is more of a buzzword. Reliability is the best I have. Anyone have a better suggestion? -- kainaw ™ 19:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think accuracy is right: you're comparing how close the search engine's result is to what the user is looking for. Angr (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that's the right word. When was the last time anyone did a Google search that came up with precisely one hit, the exact answer they were looking for? There's typically a large number of hits, ranked to reflect the decreasing assumed likelihood of it being the thing the user wanted. But maybe the answer they wanted is hit number 216, not hit number 1. Or maybe the best it gives them is a way to refine their question, which they can then re-ask with an extra bit of info they didn't previously have. Given that different people will ask different questions to get information about the same thing, and given that the machine cannot possibly "know" just exactly what it is the user needs to know, since all it knows is the few scant bits of words it's given, I'd say Google gives comprehensive results that usually include the required answer, but not always. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effective? Efficient? (Or combine the two: "effectivicient"?) SupercaliGooglicious? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Productive. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term you're looking for is "relevancy". It used to be a just an uncommon synonym of "relevance", but the "-y" version tends to be used specifically with regards to search engines.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A statistician would probably use "optimality". You could also just call it "quality". "Robustness" is not correct -- to call an algorithm robust doesn't mean it is usually very good, it just means that it is rarely very bad. Looie496 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? No one will care if you describe Google by saying, "I found the results that I had wanted, and I think they're very reliable and a great search engine in that way". There's no point in searching for all this accuracy/precision/fitness/reliability/robustness/efficiency/productivity/relevancy/[fill in the blank]. Inter change able|talk to me 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One hopes that a search engine will return "promising" results. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but words are nice. Card Zero (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I used relevancy and the editors liked it. Also, I've noted Wikipedia's Reference Desk in the research section, but I doubt that will make it through the editors and into publication. I think there is a bit of a dislike for Wikipedia by textbook publishers. -- kainaw ™ 19:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pertinent" (or pertinence) would I think be another word applicable. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]