Language desk
< September 5	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 7 >

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 6

Need Help With Translation

Can anyone translate this phrase- "Be yourself"- into casual French, Japanese, and Korean? (Assume that the "be" is imperative, yet not aggressive.) You don't have to do all three at once. :) Kikiluvscheese 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French: Sois toi-même. —An gr 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. :] Kikiluvscheese 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only a student of japanese, but my stab at this (and it's difficult because to refer to the person using a pronoun tends to indicate familiarity) would be "anata o ite kudasai", literallly "you (object) please be", or thus, "please be you" (iru in the te form is ite, right? because itte is from iku...).... it's still kind of a weird statement. If you want to literally use "yourself", I think that's "jibun" rather than "anata", but you'd want to probably state "anata ga jibun o ite kudasai" to avoid saying "please be myself". And of course, the person's name should be used instead of "anata" in more formal situations Kuronue | Talk 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese: いつもの自分でいなさい "itsumo-no jibun de inasai". -Paul D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.29.16.127 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When should the hyphen be used, and when should it not be used?

Is it "fair-use" or "fair use"? --166.121.36.232 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always told to use the hyphen when the phrase is describing something else (acting as an adjective, as in fair-use restrictions), and to leave it out when the phrase stands by itself (acting as a noun, fair use). —Keenan Pepper 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good rule and I agree with it, but it's only fair to point out that hyphens seem to be dropping out of fashion and many people would now write 'fair use restrictions". --Anonymous, 04:36 UTC, September 6, 2007.

For the Manual of Style guideline, check out WP:HYPHEN and if you're interested even further in horizontal lines as punctuation be sure to read WP:DASH just below! --JayHenry 06:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the use of hyphens is dropping out of fashion, it is a shame. I will continue to use them, fashionably or not, because they help to avoid ambiguity. With a hyphen, it is clear that "fair-use restrictions" refers to restrictions on fair use. Without a hyphen, "fair use restrictions" could refer either to restrictions on fair use or to fair restrictions on use. This is why we use hyphens and other forms of punctuation. Marco polo 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with foreign language links

The Eagle Has Landed (film) was split off from The Eagle Has Landed (novel). I transferred over the Russian link. Could someone confirm that I've read the Cyrillic correctly, i.e. "фильм" as "film". Also, I can't read Japanese; the same link is in both articles. Where should "鷲は舞い降りた" go? Clarityfiend 06:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (or maybe да), фильм = film. -- JackofOz 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from [1], the Japanese article is about the novel, but gives the year as 1976 rather than 1975; the film is mentioned only in passing. —An gr 06:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (The translation of the Japanese article is hilarious.) Clarityfiend 04:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "鷲は舞い降りた" is the name of the film, if that helps. --Manga 23:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish phrase

Hi! Could anyone confirm whether "¿Has podido entrar a ...?" means "Have you been able to enter ...?" as I suppose? Thanks in advance. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 08:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Drmaik 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmaik! —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

words in other languages

how can i get words used in other languages for a word in english languge ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.85.136 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using dictionaries. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly a bilingual dictionary. Depending on the target languages, some are even available online, or bundled with CD-ROM versions of mainstream dictionaries such as Encarta's. -- Deborahjay 15:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to use Wiktionary. [2]--El aprendelenguas 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growth of English acceptability of (Middle) English

Whop was the first King of England to have used English as his first (or most usual) language?

I have heard that it was Richard II, Henry IV or Henry V but cannot find a reference in my earlier reading. Now I can't find it in wikipedia.

MacAuslan 11:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Richard II was the first king born after English became the official language of the English courts in 1362. He was also a patron of Geoffrey Chaucer, so he probably had some appreciation for and at least a good working knowledge of the language. According to this somewhat dubious source, Henry IV was the first king whose native language was English. The kings were roughly contemporary, and both were born to mothers who were born and raised in England, according to our articles, so there is nothing in the circumstantial evidence to distinguish them. Certainly both could speak English. Marco polo 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try posting this on the Humanities desk; this seems like the kind of question Clio the Muse could answer. --Cody.Pope 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward III was king in 1362 when English became the official language. Our article says he was bilingual but preferred French. Adam Bishop 15:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever it was, it certainly wasn't King Whop I, II or III. :) JackofOz 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an answer that Clio put on her talk page: "Middle English had made steady progress in the course of the fourteenth century and it is likely that Richard II, and possibly even Edward III, had a working knowledge of the language; but the first king to use English publicly was Henry IV in his coronation address of October 1399. Thereafter the use of English became standard practice. Clio the Muse 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)" --Cody.Pope 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

invitation question...

I am a member of a non-profit group called: Charleston Women in International Trade. We are developing invitations for a function that we are hosting.

Should the invitation read:

Charleston Women in International Trade invite you...?

or

Charleston Women in International Trade invites you...?

Please provide the rule which decides this and references, if possible.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexedmotherof1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard set rule here. Differing sources suggest that you should use the singular verb, the plural verb, or either. Since all the women are acting as a singule group, you would use the singular "invites" here. If you were acting independently, you might use the plural. HYENASTE 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, definitely plural. In American English, it depends on whether or not you consider "Charleston Women in International Trade" an entity distinct from its membership. —Tamfang 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In American English there is a tendency for a plural form of name to imply a plural verb: it's "women", hence "invite"; but in formal usage organizations are usually singular. To make everyone happy you might consider using another wording, like "The members of ... invite you". --Anonymous, 01:03 UTC, September 7, 2007.

Our article on American and British English differences, in the subsection "Formal and notional agreement", states:

Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Colts are the champions.

However, in the form this rule is stated it is too absolute; our own articles on the United States and the United Nations use singular verb forms (The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic; The United Nations is an organization), which is a common way of handling noun–verb agreement for these proper nouns even in British English. The style guide of The Times gives this rule:

plurals make corporate bodies and institutions singular unless this looks odd. Thus “The National Trust is...”, but sports teams are plural, eg, “Arsenal were worth their 8-0 lead”. Whether singular or plural, always maintain consistency within a story.[3]

I could not find a ruling on when something "looks odd". --Lambiam 05:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's where the individual's personal sensory apparatus comes into play, Lambiam. They probably meant to say "unless it sounds odd when spoken", but that looks odd (or sounds odd) because we're used to the expression "looks odd" in relation to the written word. Is any of this making sense? :) -- JackofOz 12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. I'm inclined to say that we need to us the word, "invites" because we are one group; but the person actually doing the invitations says I'm wrong. I think we are going to look pretty uneducated if we send them out using "invite", but...I guess you have to pick your battles (or so I'm told). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexedmotherof1 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if it were written as CWIT? Would it then always be singular? DirkvdM 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish "ya"

I'm trying to learn some Spanish on my own. What is the meaning/usage of the word "ya" I see in Spanish sentences? --Halcatalyst 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Already", basically. But it's also used idiomatically. Corvus cornix 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... as an intensifier, I gather. —Tamfang 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Voy" means "I go." "Ya voy" means "I'm already going". Idiomatically, "I'm on my way" HYENASTE 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or ya lo sé, "I know, I know" (lit.: "I already know it"). When used emphatically like that it can also often mean "now": dímelo ya, "tell me now!" (English also uses "already" in emphatic statements to mean "right this instant", though not as commonly as Spanish uses ya that way: "come ON, already!"). Also, ya no is "no longer" (ya no trabaja aquí, "he doesn't work here anymore") --Miskwito 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I studied Spanish for nine years, minored in Spanish in college, and I still don't get the usage of the word ya. It just pops up everywhere in the speech of native Spanish speakers. -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can also mean "enough", when a person is putting milk in your coffee or you are buying a length or quantity of something in a shop, you say "ya" meaning "OK, that's enough". It can be used in many situations where you are adjusting or moving something with or for another person who will tell you "ya" with the same meaning. My experience is living in Andalucia - whether they use the word like this elsewhere in Spain...?Richard Avery 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you say "ya, basta"? Corvus cornix 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... "ya" is much more appropiate in the situations described by User:Richard Avery. "ya, basta" (though in colloquial Spanish "vale ya" would be more common) would be for somebody who performs repeatedly an annoying action on you and you would like him to stop. Moreover, I don't think that word varies much in its usage in different regions of the Spanish-speaking world. If somebody gave specific examples, we could give specific translations. --Taraborn 10:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ya" can also be a weak affirmative word kind of like the English "yeah." Its usage as such is more popular in some dialects than in others.--El aprendelenguas 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. This has been very illuminating. --Halcatalyst 03:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]