Language desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

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.

January 9

contemporary - correct usage

When I read the following line from Yogaswami I thought at first that it was incorrect because he is no longer alive.

Jnanaguru Siva Yogaswami of Jaffna (1872-1964) was Sri Lanka's most renowned contemporary spiritual master, ...

Having looked at various definitions and usages I am not sure. It appears that as well as currently living people it can also mean people who were alive at the same time as someone else (presumably the reader), or generally of the modern era. There seems to be confusion as to the meaning of this, for example Contemporary has an entry

Contemporary philosophy, Western philosophy from c. 1960 to present

The linked article begins:

Contemporary philosophy is the period in the history of philosophy that began at the end of the nineteenth century with the rise of analytic and continental philosophy and that extends into the present.

I have a couple of questions:

I was confused about the exact meaning of contemporary (I am a native British English speaker). Is it just me or is this likely to confuse others. This seems likely from the above links.
If I should change the Yogaswami article what should I change it to? Changing contemporary to recent is a little less confusing but still vague. I could change it to "was Sri Lanka's most renowned 20th Century spiritual master", but being pedantic his life also spanned the late 19th century.

Advice would be appreciated

I see your problem. To get the answer out of the way, I'd make it "20th-century spiritual master". (Notice the small "c" in "century" and the hyphen.) I looked at the article, and he really didn't get going until the twentieth century. This is contingent on his actually being the "most renowned"—hard to prove unless you both know of every Sri Lankan spiritual master of the twentieth century and have data on their relative renown.

Thanks - I have gone with your suggestion.

I'm sure you meant "contemporary" where you have "temporary" up there. My historian wife and I have a running thing about the word "contemporary". In historiography, it seems to mean something like "coeval"; contemporary sources are ones written at the time in question, not modern ones. It is ambiguous unless you're careful. The "contemporary" in "contemporary philosophy" is jargon from that field and is of no concern here. "Recent" sucks style-wise, to put it plainly. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in art history, "contemporary" is often applied to art dating from the 1940's onward. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to contemporary music, which may no longer be contemporary. Just as logically, it ought to be a contradiction in terms for anything already existing to be "post-modern". —An gr 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "coeval" for "contemporary with something at a specified time past or present"? Does that work? Rhinoracer (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian transliteration of English place name and football team

I'd be grateful for some input from Russian specialists at [1] Thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help out, but the question you posted there reminds of something I heard once: that many Russians are unaware that the American political writer Hoaм Xoмcкий and the American linguist Hoaм Чoмcки are the same person. —An gr 12:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Can someone help? --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a British football team. Norwich City. The 'w' is not usually pronounced, but it is transliterated here.--KageTora (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that reply, and I don't understand the reply on the ru: talk page. I'm just asking why the city and the football team have inconsistent spellings. --Dweller (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise at all here, but could it be that there is a traditional Russian way of writing Norwich which isn't always used, just as we have Saragossa and Zaragoza? Indeed, with some overseas football teams the English language does just the same: we say "Bayern Munich" and not "Bayern München" or "Bavaria Munich". We can also ponder on the fact that the Bishop of Norwich signs his name "Graham Norvic". Strawless ^(talk) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet when he reads his signature out loud, he says "Graham Norwich", not "Graham Norvic". Weird. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that transliterations aren't consistent in either direction. WP:RUS gives guidelines for Russian-to-English; is there a corresponding guideline for the opposite direction? Personally, I'd write 'Норич' though. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point occurs to me, which is that the confusion over -идж and -ич is easy to explain. I have spent some of my life in England, but I'm not at all sure whether I should say Norridge or Norritch. Aren't both pronunciations acceptable? Strawless ^(talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munroe's reply from ru:Обсуждение:Норвич Сити:

Many years ago, Norwich in Russian was known as Норвич, see article in Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. Later name of this town was phonetically transliterated as Норидж, see here. But the football club from Norwich still known as Норвич Сити, and this name is used by newspapers, books. magazines etc. This name сompletely corresponds ВП:ИС-СПОРТ.

(This is a more recent reply and not the one Dweller didn't understand, by the way. Just posting it here for everyone's edification). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is similar to how most English language print products spell the Chinese capital "Beijing" nowadays, but retain the older romanization in "Peking University" or "Peking duck". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objective (Resume)

Seeking a spring internship in the Human Resource Management field
To obtain a spring internship in the Human Resource Management field
Human Resource Management internship where outstanding communication skills and education can be utilized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.229.245 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is appropriate? Are there any difference between them?--202.168.229.245 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your motive for making the resumé is that you are seeking a spring internship.
Your objective is to obtain an internship. DuncanHill (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the second one is correct, right? (or both?) what about third one?--202.168.229.245 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the second, maybe the third (sounds a little overstated to my ear, but I'm not a human resources recruiter!) DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm doing some research on "objective" before finalizing my resume. But I found many website on the net (for exmaple about.com) says "objective" should be this way and that way, which has made me bit confused. --202.168.229.245 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience suggests that nobody reads it anyway. I put "Seeking ..." right at the top of my resume; every recruiter glances at it, puts it down and says, "So what kind of job are you looking for?" Maybe they're confused that I don't say I'm looking to apply (or leverage, or whatever is this week's buzzword) my mad skilz in a challenging forward-looking fast-paced detail-oriented environment. — But for what little my opinion is worth, I'd say the objective is the internship itself. —Tamfang (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, much of the advice I've seen on resumes is that the Objective section is superfluous. Your objective is to get a job; they already know that. But, YMMV. gnfnrf (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they may not know which job you are after. Wouldn't you hate to apply to be the janitor and be made the CEO of a company about to go bankrupt and have it's officers all arrested for fraud ? StuRat (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming at this from the "hiring" side (though not HR either). When I see "objective" I expect to read what someone wants to do/ achieve; not what someone is doing (looking for a job). Although there is a lot of truth in what Tamfang said (after the first 40 resumes all you do is leaf through and see if something sticks out). So I'd write what you want to do during your internship.

Gain experience in human resource management during a spring internship
Obtain in-depth insights into human resources management through a spring internship
Assist your human resources management as an intern, starting this spring

If you think you know what they need their intern to do and in what areas you can be an asset, you might put that there. (Some places have descriptions online, select the most suitable feature.) You could also put the time period separately in the line above e.g.

Spring Internship - Assisting in organizing the training-reorg in your human resources department - Lisa4edit (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native name of the Bateleur

The Bateleur, despite being an African bird, bears a French name. Does this bird have a different name in any of the African languages spoken where it lives? If not, what was it called before contact with French-speakers? gnfnrf (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kruger has Ingqanga in Xhosa, iNgqungqulu in Zulu, and Berghaan in Afrikaans. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This biodiversity site confirms the three translations, and also has Sipupa in Kwangali, Chapungu in Shona, Ingculungculu in Swazi, Ximongwe in Tsonga, and Ntsu or Pêtlêkê in Tswana. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]