Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 November 29

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 29

Chinese help: I Not Stupid Too

What is the Pinyin of Jerry Yeo (杨学强) of the film I Not Stupid Too? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yángxuéqiáng. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yáng Xuéqiáng - Yang is his surname. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Which tense?

For a living person, which of these is more correct?

An outspoken and controversial celebrity, West frequently spoke out against homophobia in hip hop music.

or

An outspoken and controversial celebrity, West has frequently spoken out against homophobia in hip hop music.

I see no reason to use the simple past, but other editors seem to disagree. Thanks in advance! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The latter is appropriate.

The former gives the impression West has said all he is ever going to say about the issue, and nobody, not even West, could possibly know that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The simple past would be appropriate if a specific time were given; "In 2003, West spoke out against Homophobia at the Down Low Convention," or if he had changed his mind; "In 2003, West spoke out against homophobia, but in 2005 he snatched the microphone from a DJ named Rich and quoted Leviticus at him." Otherwise the position is still a relevant current fact, and the present perfect is used. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The first is appropriate if West is dead, or if he is definitively no longer involved with hip hop music, or for some other reason he is never going to have the chance to speak out about homophobia again. Otherwise use the present perfect. - filelakeshoe 10:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Does this response make sense in terms of grammar?

I read this in a forum and I somehow find the sentences hard to patch even though I can follow its context. Anyway I jut want to know if its just me who concludes this or if it is really true.

"However, what the question obviously takes as its starting premise the observation, perhaps gained from her experience in the classroom, or from her own research, that "serious" philosophy requires a rigor beyond that that which ordinary language is capable of achieving. (Well, that's a leap. I should have qualified it by indicating that the arguments provided for one's thesis or dissertation or their important papers have to be put in a formal way, without specifying why they must be.)

And, from this observation, one may reasonably note that much of continental philosophy is thereby consigned to the flames, as Hume might put it. However, this exclusion, it seems to me, is too narrow a range for philosophical discourse, in particular it omits any serious discussion of human affairs, including the mind itself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence appears to be a mistake: the writer apparently started to write a cleft sentence, and then forgot they had, so it lacks a main verb. I couldn't be bothered to wade any further through the verbiage. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The missing verb seems to be is:
However, what the question obviously takes as its starting premise [is] the observation [...]
Even with it, the sentence seems rather contrieved; I came to like simpler and more concise expression. Am I just lazy or... ? No such user (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What does this banner say?

This banner was among the stuff we found when we opened up an old trunk of my late father-in-law. He was a WWII vet; he served in New Guinea, Philippines, and then Japan as a mechanic in the First Cavalry Division -- he writes of getting the vehicles ready for the victory march through Tokyo, and then later of achieving his long time goal of racing his "wrecker" through the streets of Tokyo. Anyway -- what does the main slogan say on this banner? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

武運長久 - [ぶうんちょうきゅう] continued luck in the fortunes of war , see http://www.eudict.com/?lang=jpkeng&word=%E6%AD%A6%E9%81%8B%E9%95%B7%E4%B9%85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.241.167 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm guessing the rest of the stuff on it is signatures (especially since there are a few seals on it too.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha. We even have an article on these: Good Luck Flag. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take a crack at discovering the identity of the flag's original owner, though of course it would likely be a more intensive process than the usual RD inquiry. Feel inclined to upload some higher resolution images, jp? Snow (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We'll need to do some work on the flag first; it's all wrinkled, hard to photograph, and unfortunately suffered some water damage over the intervening 65 years. But we're looking into returning it to the family of the original owner. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, very cool of you. I'm sure it will be an intriguing process; be sure to check back in here if you run into a brick wall, I for one would enjoy looking into the flag's origins. Snow (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

need adjective

If a man is called "Hubbell" (sic), what is the adjective? Hubbellian? Hubbelean? Any thoughts welcome. Robinh (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It so happens that there is a (relatively) famous scientist with that name, Stephen P. Hubbell. Is this about him? I've never seen or heard anyone use an adjectival form of his name, and he/ his work are the subject of much discussion. I have heard the name used adjecivally: "the Hubbell theory", or possessively: "Hubbell's theory", but it also has a name of its own, the Unified neutral theory of biodiversity. If pressed for an adjectival form, I'd pick "Hubbellian", in line with "Dickensian" and "Orwellian", the only other adjectival forms of names that pop in to my head. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(OP) Thanks for this, SM. I did indeed have Stephen P. Hubbell in mind. But I really need the adjective. The sentence fragment I'm working on (for a journal article discussing neutral theory) is: "This is thus a standard Hubbellian system but with the addition of ...". Best wishe, Robinh (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning: I suspect an editor, reviewer, or copy editor may balk at that usage. Why not rephrase as something like "Thus, our model is largely similar to that of Hubbell et al. (2000?), though we extend/improve it by adding features X, Y and Z"? Or "thus a standard neutral system (Hubbell, 2000), but with..." -- of course, you didn't ask for style advice, so I'll shut up ;) Good luck! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's Orwellian, then it's Hubbellian. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to make things interesting, what if the name in question sounds the same but is spelled Hubble? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hubbelian is a possibility. Aristotle gets Aristotelian, where the -le gets changed to -elian. But I like Hubblovian (well, if Shaw can become Shavian ...). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know the history/etymology of the w/v change? I recently saw "Apatovian", meaning in the style of Judd Apatow. I suspect it's got something to to with Latin, but my latin education is pretty ancient history... SemanticMantis (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's less a case of a specific historical change and better described as the result of a general phonological pressure, specifically a change from a continuant to a fricative in an intervocalic context. That [w] --> [v] / V_V(front-close)VN# could occur in the speech of English speakers even without their being explicitly aware of a past prescriptive rule would not shock me. Snow (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hubbellesque is more fun. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a job riding on this, go with whatever's funner. And yes, Shavian is just being Latinate since the 'w' didn't exist during Roman days. Not that Latin uses sh either. It's also a little easier to say than Shaw-yan or Shaw-eean. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(OP) thanks for these thoughts guys. I did consider "Hubbellesque", but this is (at least to my ears) far too vague, meaning "recognizably in the style of Hubbell". I want specifically "Following on directly from the school of thought of Hubbell". @SM: no worries; I'm very happy to consider any style advice! But "largely similar" misses the point. The new system is precisely the system of Hubbell 2001 with a new bit that does not affect *at all* the dynamics. It's like a "Newtonian" model but with non-dynamically active colours somehow entering the system and the planets somehow change colour when they collide. I'd say of this system "This is thus a Newtonian system with the added feature of colours which...". And it looks as though "Hubbellian" best fits the bill. But OTOH "Dickensian" bears no resemblance to, say, "Aristotelian"; to my ears "Dickensian" means "reminiscent of the fiction of . . ." (ie precisely analogous to "Kafkaesque") which isn't the correct sense either. I want something like "Keynesian", I think. Best, Robinh (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So something that's reminiscent of Janice Ian would be Ianian? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, if it were reminiscent of her it would be Ianesque. If it were characteristic of her it would be Ianian. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this will work but http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/columnists/miles-kington/miles-kington-the-kafkaesque-world-of-the-literary-label-committee-480712.html Robinh (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of a line from the play 'The House of Yes':

-What's that gun doing there?

-Being gunlike, gunesque, gunonic.

-Where did it come from?

-God?

Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)