Language desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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 8

The word "heavy" in air traffic controller lingo

I have been watching a lot of old episodes of Mayday. Oftentimes, when the pilot is communicating with air traffic control (and vice versa), they will say something like: "American Airlines Flight 123 heavy". I have seen this many times in many different episodes. What does the word "heavy" mean in this context? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE: See Heavy (aeronautics). Dismas|^(talk) 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK, so the word "heavy" makes sense. But why is it important for the pilot and the air traffic controller to constantly reiterate the weight/size of the plane? Don't all parties involved already know that the plane is a 747 or whatever? Why would they repeatedly need to communicate the "heavy" characteristic of the plane? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my memory (it's been a number of years since I used my pilot's license), they don't have to repeat it all the time. The example you gave above could, and would, be shortened down to something like "American 123" or "123 heavy" by both the tower and aircraft once initial contact had been made. Just like how many people probably call you Joe or Joseph instead of constantly calling you Joseph A. Spadaro. Dismas|^(talk) 01:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the reason it gets mentioned is to do with wake turbulence - ATC has to know how big the plane is so that they know what separation they need from other planes. Kahastok talk 19:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's something wrong with the Earth's gravitational pull? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

under a sky of white

Another question about Martin Amis's "Lionel Asbo: State of England". I just can't figure out what the author intends to mean by using the phrase "under a sky of white" in the following context: "He lived his life in tunnels...And yet for the sensitive soul, in Diston Town, there was really only one place to look. Where did the eyes go? They went up, up. School--Squeers Free, uner a sky of white: the weakling headmaster, the demoralised chalkies in their rayon tracksuits,..." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.157.192 (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overcast? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ceiling! DuncanHill (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an understood phrase in Rightpondia? I guess it does make a certain amount of sense — kind of the reverse of the "big blue room". --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, just seemed obvious to me from the context - he's in school, daydreaming, escaping, he looks up... What's the big blue room when it's at home? DuncanHill (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your small question — reminds me of the joke about "why is a mouse when it's spinning?". I guess the big blue room is not that often blue in the UK, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My little question could be re-phrased as "I am unacquainted with the "big blue room" to which you refer. Pray, kind soul, enlighten me"."...when it's at home?" is a stock phrase at the end of a question about what a previously unknown (the the questioner) thing is. DuncanHill (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The big blue room is the one with the really high ceiling and unpredictable air conditioning. It's always good to take an occasional break from your computer and visit the big blue room. --Trovatore (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! That's a new one on me. DuncanHill (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the big blue room is new, not the idea of occasionally going outside. I do do that! DuncanHill (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking after their environments

Read the following sentence, without any preconceptions, stop, form an opinion before reading on:

"Red-crowned cranes are really special, because although their environments are so dirty, they look after them and try to make them clean."

It's from a non-native speaker, and somehow my brain flagged it as wrong because of "environments". The student gave me a confused look, like she was quite sure (her level is quite high) and now I'm the one who's confused. What do you think? Note that it's not quite the exact sentence, because it's roughly from memory, so it may also sound slightly clumsy, but don't worry too much about that. IBE (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine by me. Refers to the particular places individual (or individual pairs of) cranes live, rather than their common ecosystem. If they'd all band together to make a concerted, long-term effort to improve air and water quality, that'd be really special, and your student would be really wrong. But they don't. Something like the difference between cleaning up the neighbourhood and cleaning your room. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the logic that was intended, but my brain flagged it anyway, somehow. I'm thinking it must be because the language is slightly wrong somewhere or other, or else because there's a better or more common way of expressing it. But I sometimes overthink when I'm teaching, and get into a muddle. Any help appreciated. IBE (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example in English between a mass noun and a true plural. Sometimes, you're thinking about a countable number of items (one environment, two environments, two environments,), but then the same word also has a sense which is an uncountable mass noun (the environment as in the ecosystem). A classic example is with hair. "She found two red hairs on my collar" vs. "The boy had red hair". --Jayron32 17:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you balk if 'environs' were substituted? I'm with Hulk here: it's not wrong, just a bit clunky. I suspect your hangup is with your personal connotations for 'environment'. See environment and [1]. It can mean a lot of different things, like when we talk about a "work environment", or a "home environment", etc. (I also assume that you are not interested in discussing the biology here on the language desks, but the statement probably has some biological problems too...)SemanticMantis (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. No, I wouldn't balk, but 'environs' is a different word. I think the point is, for me, 'environment' is best left as singular/ uncountable, unless you mean characteristically distinct environments, as in "Crabs and cranes live in very different environments." Still, I think 'environs' might be better, as might 'surroundings'. For formal writing, I might choose 'living environment', which is different again. I am interested in what anyone else might prefer - the discussion helps me to clear my thoughts. I am interested enough in the biology, if it is relevant to the question. The question came about because of an instinctive reaction, which upon reflection I couldn't justify, so anything that informs it is relevant. IBE (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Expression For.....

"Thank you for choosing XXX Company." I just did an interpreting job over the telephone between an American company and a Japanese customer, and at the end of it, the American lady said "Thank you for choosing XXX Company, have a nice day." and I just translated it as "Thank you. Have a nice day." The reason I did this is because in all my ten years in Japan, I don't think I really heard a Japanese version of this phrase. How should I have translated it? I would guess a literal translation to be 「XXX社をご選択いただいて、有難う御座いました」　or 「XXX社をご使用になって、有難う御座いました」. Also, would this normally be said? As I say, maybe I heard it once or twice, but not often enough for me to really remember. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are similar companies and the customer chose XXX among others, the first one is OK. Just いただき would better. And do not use the past tense. ありがとうございます is fine. You can use 弊社 or 我が社, instead of XXX. You can also use 選んでくださり for choosing. The second one would be OK, if you use ご利用くださり. Never use ご使用. It's wrong. Oda Mari (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mari. Yes, thinking about it now, the past tense would imply the customer no longer uses the company. I would prefer to use XXX, as this is what we do - it sort of reinforces the notion of which company the person is talking to. And yes, ご使用 was a mistake. I don't know why I wrote that. Sorry. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, ご利用いただき is OK. Hmm, it would be better than くださり. Oda Mari (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]