Language desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

October 23

Indian name subsequent uses

In an article like Asaf-ud-Daula where the full name is spelled out everywhere, how should we treat subsequent uses of a persons name? What I mean is, in an article on Bertrand Russell, say, subsequent uses are given as "Russell". Would it work to use "Daula" in subsequent uses? I believe it is a title, so it might be like using "King" or "Prince" over and over. Should we switch to "first" name for subsequent uses? Just use the full name every time?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymologically, the name is Arabic in form, with ud- being a modified form of the classical determiner al, "the". So, whatever the names Asaf and Daula mean, the name is essentially Assaf-the-Daula. The proper way to handle this would be to look at the article's sources. Do any of them refer to him as Daula or ud-Daula, or Ud Daula? If so, follow that. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds about right, thanks for responding. I am always telling people "look to the sources" myself. But I was thinking we might have a MoS house style giving guidance, though I haven't located it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Not at all, because it's not obvious what's going on with the ud- part if you don't have a glancing familiarity with arabic. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic), although it's not very helpful. Basically, "ad-Daula" means "of the state" - I forget what "Asaf" means but it's probably something like "glory of the state" (when in doubt the Arabic word is always "glory"). Using "ud-Daula" by itself would make no sense, much like "Abdul" makes no sense, for example. Asaf ud-Daula is already the short form of his name, which is, as you say, actually much longer. This is his laqab, a description that is actually an Arabic sentence rather than strictly a name. Unfortunately you can't get any shorter than that. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That (X ud-D) would be the construct state then, a genitive expression. That's not always the case with such Arabic names, because some al-X (e.g., al Masri) names are geographical. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If it's not clear, Adam is saying Abdul makes no sense by itself because it literally means "slave of" and should be followed by some epithet of God, like Abdul-Rahman, see Rahman_(name). μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Dictionary of American Family Names, as a Muslim/Christian name, it is "from an Arabic personal name āsaf, of unknown etymology. This was the name of Suleiman’s grand wazir, whence it came to be used proverbially as a name for any wise counselor." As such ud-Daula is likely to be a geographical reference in this case. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to what though? It's surely just the typical Arabic construction "ad-Daula". Maybe it didn't actually mean anything to him, but it's certainly an Arabic laqab. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: ud-Daula and ad-Daula are simply phonetically conditioned versions of al-Daula, and mean the same thing. See sun letters. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I see your point. I was unconsciously assuming that "Daula" referred to some specific geographic location, and hence interpreting al-Daula as a Nisba (ie, a geographical reference). Somehow I missed noticing that al-Daula's literal meaning (which you had provided) was "of the state". Given that, Asaf-ud-Daula essentially is equivalent to the title/description "Wise man of the state" just as his father's name, Shuja-ud-Daula, would correspond to "brave man of the state". Right? Abecedare (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His name was Muhammad Yahya Ali, and Asaf-ud-Daula was his laqab (according to this source: Great Islamic Encyclopaedia. I'm sorry if you can't read it.) He is known by his full laqab in every Engligh source that I know. So I suggest that you use it the same way. Omidinist (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common in Indian subcontinent to corrupt Arabic names, like Nazrul Islam (who is often referred to as 'Nazrul', which is a bit weird from an Arabic point of view) or using 'Uddin' as a last name. --Soman (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all the comments, which have rounded out the issue for me. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translations and Licenses

I have two questions:

(1) If person X translates a public domain book (bible) into an obscure language called Y, and he then copyrights that translation, am I forbidden from translating the same PD Bible into a dialect of language Y.

(2) If a photo in Wikipedia is covered by both a GNU license and a creative commons license, may I use that photo in a book?

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which country? Copyright law varies from country to county. --Jayron32 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You can (in most countries at least) always use a PD source, no matter what use someone else has made of it. But if you used the copyrighted translation as a starting point, rather than the original PD source, that might well be a problem.

(2) you can use it if you comply with either license. Exactly what this means depends on what country you are in and which CC license is involved. The GFDL requires that you include the text of the license itself, which might be awkward for a book, but would be technically possible. The requirements of the various CC licenses vary. DES ^(talk) 16:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the article Copyright on religious works says Many editions of the Bible are under copyright due to their unique edition or translation. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last night...

Is it ok if, while writting in past tense and you are going to talk about what happened the night before the day you are talking about in that moment, to say last night

e.g. After last night, the question is serious. Oh! He knows exactly what she wants to go over, but he isn’t ready. Does he loves her or not. After last night, the question is serious.

Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is in present tense; in present tense you can say 'last night', but if you'd been writing in past tense, as you intimated, you'd have had to say 'the previous night'.

We say 'he loves her', but when it's part of a question it becomes 'does he love her'.

Also, there's only one t in 'writing'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“

Found a peanut, found a peanut
Found a peanut last night
Last night I found a peanut
Found a peanut last night

”

That seems to be in past tense, and use "last night". What do you mean exactly, Jack? Are you talking about the "reference time" or something? --Trovatore (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Miss Bono is talking about a context where the author is relating something that happened in the past. He writes and writes, and then comes to a point where he needs to refer to something that happened even earlier than what he's just been writing about. He can't use 'last night' in that situation. Otherwise we'd be reading things like "JFK was shot in a motorcade in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Last night, he had had a premonition something bad would happen, but he dismissed it" - and that's poor writing. We'd need to say "the previous night" there. Do you disagree? Or do you interpret her question differently? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh here it goes again my awful English. I know that when you ask a question you don't add the s but sometimes it sounds so good that I add it by accident.

I am reading some kind of story that it's driving me crazy. Sometimes it has was, were, did but then it has is, am, does and do...

And I was racking my brain on whether I should add the extra t to writing or not... apparently I chose the wrong one.

Sorry again. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's never any need to apologise for mistakes with your English. Certainly not to anyone here. If you like, you can simply say 'thanks'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question correctly, today is Wednesday and we are discussing what John said on Tuesday about what happened on Monday night. In that case Jack is correct that you would report, "John said everything had changed the night before". But if you quoted John directly, you would use his actual words: Yesterday, John said, "Everything changed last night." The rules are the same in English as Spanish. See sequence of tenses and indirect speech. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy in English

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Looking_for_a_good_explanation_of_literacy_problems let me thinking: is something in written English which makes it more difficult than other languages, or even impossible, for some learners? Maybe the peculiar spelling or does it have more syllables than other languages? I mean from a purely linguistic perspective, obviously, people without access to schooling are out of luck. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both pronunciation and spelling are big challenges for beginners. Training in Phonics helps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English IS more complicated and much less logical than a lot of other languages. I'm glad I didn't have to learn it as an adult. I think you may have a valid point. Part of that other discussion spoke of the fact that the real literacy problem is hardly ever discussed. It's hidden, swept under the carpet, and we still have claims of 99% literacy rates for countries like mine, Australia, and it's absolute nonsense. I would love there to be more research done in the area, but when so many won't even admit there's a problem, that's not likely. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it depends on how you define "literacy". It could mean the ability to read and understand Shakespeare. It could also mean the ability to read street signs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken English is in some ways much harder than the written form. For example most varieties of English have more than twenty distinct vowel sounds and the commonest is the schwa, wich doesn't have a specific letter, thus any of the witten vowels can (almost arbitrarily) represent a schwa sound. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]