Language desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 7

Trying to write correct english

What's wrong with this sentence ? I can't say "two shots from/of the bow" ? Then how to best formulate the sentence ?

"It had been the proudest day of his short life, having killed the elk with two shots of/from the bow and then flaying the animal himself, with just a little guidance from his father."

109.247.62.59 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it's redundant. "Shots of the bow", "shots from his bow" or simply "bow shots" are okay, but "shots from the bow" is a bit odd (since there's more than one bow in the world). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, there is more than just one bow in the world... it's a good point. "his bow" rather than "the bow" makes a big difference, I can see that. "shots from his bow" it is. tnx 109.247.62.59 (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with "from the bow", but would slightly prefer "from his bow". More importantly, though, the sentence doesn't seem to be quite certain what its subject is. Ending the first clause with a comma and heading straight into the next one makes it sound like the sentence's "it" (in this case, "the proudest day..." is what "... killed the elk", rather than the boy himself. If I came across a sentence like this in my editing work, I would rephrase it to something like

"It had been the proudest day of his short life--he had killed the elk with two shots from his bow and then flayed the animal himself, with just a little guidance from his father."

But that's just me. Whatever you do, make sure to fix that word I bolded. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even better that "from his/the bow" would be "...with just two arrows". Also I would say flaying, whilst completely the correct word for the process, would not be recognised by the average reader. Skinning is much more simple and descriptive. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "short life" is incorrect there, because no matter how young he is, from his perspective his life has not been "short". How about:

"It was the proudest day of his life. At 5 years of age he killed an elk with two bow shots. And with just a little guidance from his father he disemboweled it in preparation for providing nutritional sustenance for his family." Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, another minor question : How to use the word 'subservient' ? Does one say "subservient towards their husbands" or "subservient to their husbands" ? tnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think either use might be correct, but a more extensive context might point to one use as preferable. But I do think that in general the second use—"subservient to their husbands"—is more concise and direct, tending to make it preferable. Bus stop (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more likely to say toward (not towards, which to me implies motion--although wiktionary says no) than to. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting—I find the same distinction between "toward" and "towards". The OED says the two are equivalent, at least in all contemporary senses of the two words. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 01:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Towards" has a much more concrete spatial meaning to me. I could equally well say "he looked" or "he threw it" toward or towards me. But to say "he was disobedient towards me" sounds not like he was disobeying me, so much as he was being disobedient in my direction. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would take that to mean "near me". I would say "disobedient to me". StuRat (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It had been the proudest day of his short life, having killed an elk with two shots from the bow and flayed the animal himself, with just a little guidance from his father." is an OK piece of prose to me (British English). Bazza (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That quoted statement contains a dangling modifier.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was misled by the common term "Shot across the bow". Perhaps and entirely different construction or more context would help if it would eliminate the word "bow" entirely from this particular sentence. Mingmingla (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually reading this as "shots from the /bæʊ/", Mingmingla? μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old art document history

What is it called when old art has a document history going back hundreds of years?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance. Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30000 traps

I heard "30000 traps!"in a cigarette commercial. What's the meaning of that? 193.224.66.230 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "cigarette commercial"? ;-) Bazza (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "cigarette commercial" is a thing that presumably still can be seen in Hungary, where the OP geolocates. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that means little chambers in the filter (think bubble-shaped holes in a sponge). μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You heard this in 1958? "Over 30,000 traps - the most effective filtering material in a cigarette today. No other popular filter cigarette delivers less nicotine and tar". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can still occasionally see commercials in movies and old TV shows, in the show itself, or as part of the broadcast. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there's plenty on YouTube. Here's one I found recently when looking for performances by Frank Ifield. (Please don't ask why.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think I may have figured it out. It sounds like a very awkward way to discuss the Porosity of the cigarette filter. What it is telling you is that there are 30,000 places in the filter to trap stuff. It's also meaningless, in the sense that filtering ability isn't discussed in such manner. So it is perfect marketing: it sounds like something important and scientific, but it's just bullshit. --Jayron32 22:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To discuss how much tar and nicotine is removed, do it directly, by listing the amount of tar or nicotine removed, not how many "traps" a cigarette has. However, even this is irrelevant, since people will then just smoke more to get the amount of tar and nicotine they are accustomed to. StuRat (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seeking truth in tobacco advertising? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could remove the qualifier "tobacco" from that, and it would be an equally rediculous proposition. --Jayron32 02:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I once had a teacher claim that advertising provides consumers with information. Just change that to "misinformation", and she was entirely correct. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the problem that you don't want to filter out nicotine. That's why you're smoking it in the first place. If you want less nicotine, smoke fewer cigarettes. The filter is supposed to let you get the nicotine without the other harmful stuff (like tar). --Tango (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Chinese requests: Warehouse building

Hi, again! I have some additional questions about Chinese characters. I would like to know what the characters in yellow on the side of a building are. I have three views of the characters:

I put the camera through the fence to capture the characters obscured from the far end view. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characters are these. 中西饅頭, 紙品餐盆, 南北雜貨, 糖米油, 餐具設備, ?類用品. As for the fourth character of the second one, 盆, I haven't found the unicode of that traditional character. I was too busy to check the meaning of the words, but the second one might be "paper dishes/cups" and the fourth one "rice oil". Oda Mari (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)`[reply]

中西饅頭 is Chinese-Western mantou, 紙品餐盆 might be paper dishes, 南北雜貨 is [1]?, 糖米油 is rice bran oil, and 餐具設備 might be kitchen equipment. As for the meaning, please ask some native zh speaking editor. Oda Mari (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Mari! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full one of the bottommost left seems to be 糖米油鹽 WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full one of the bottommost right seems to be 各类用品 WhisperToMe (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For native Chinese editors, do these category translations sound reasonable?

Chinese and western bread, paper products for meals
Northern and southern-style groceries or miscellaneous goods, Tableware/dinner service equipment
Sugar/sweets/candy rice oil/grease salt, all categories WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]