Language desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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.

July 13

English translation for chain of law, police and forensic scientists

Hi all,

I'm looking for a nice translation of the Dutch word strafrechtsketen, or if that doesn't exist, ketenpartner. The word strafrechtsketen means something like "the chain of cooperating instances in law and order, like police, forensic institutes and law enforcement" or maybe something like "chain of criminal law"? The word ketenpartner might be translated as something like "chain of cooperating instances", or "partner in the chain". I would be very pleased if someone could help me with the correct word, since neither of them can be found in my dictionary.

Regards, 159.46.2.67 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a single English word for this. One reason for this might be that German (and presumably Dutch) likes to make long compound words where English likes to keep the words a bit more separate. Also, too much cooperation between those departments might be a bad thing. For example, if the police say "we have our suspect, now we just need you guys at the lab to prove it by giving us a matching DNA test", I'd want the lab to return the actual results, whether that's what the police want or not. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cooperation term I'm looking for points at the fact that each of the three groups (police/order, forensic scientists, prosecutors/law) is responsible for a part of the entire law enforcement procedure. Between the forensic guys (and gals) at the lab and the police, a Chinese Wall is kept up to keep out observer effects as much as possible, to avoid that the lab results are badly influenced by assumptions made at the crime scene. So don't be afraid that the chain is just there to prove police assumptions to be right... :-) But anyway thanks for your help, I'll just try to look for a short definition to write down instead of a single word. 159.46.2.67 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone watch Law & Order? :) Try the criminal justice system. Indeterminate (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's better: "a house whose door I see", or "a house which door I see", or "a house the door of which I see"?

HOOTmag (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either the first or third are acceptable English, but not the second. I would go for (1) as less clumsy. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Option 2 is non-English. Option 3 is pedanticism. Option 1 is the only viable one. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, Jack, because I would never refer to a house as a "who". Perhaps that's a US English/Australian English difference ? StuRat (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. "Whose" is the possessive, if "possessive" is the word I want, of "which" as well as "who", everywhere. --Anonymous, 10:55 UTC, July 14, 2009.

I like the last one, although I'd add a comma:

"I now come upon a house, the door of which I can see"

Although, I would think this would be more common in the past tense:

"I next came upon a house, the door of which I could see."

However, it's still a bit awkward. Perhaps because just saying you can see something is a bit unusual. Perhaps it would be better if you just recorded something about the door, which would imply that you saw it:

"I next came upon a house with a red door." StuRat (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other options, but they're still not as idiomatic as option 1: "a house of which I see the door", "a house such that I see its door". +An gr 13:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, all your examples are in objective case. Try a nominative example and a slightly more realistic context: "A tree whose leaves are shed during winter is called deciduous" or "A tree, the leaves of which are shed during winter, is called deciduous". I'd go for the first one every time, even though trees do not take "who". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tree is alive, so at least a bit closer to being a "who". I would say "A tree which has leaves that are shed during winter is deciduous", or, better yet, "A deciduous tree has leaves that are shed during winter". StuRat (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, you're missing the point that Jack (and even I, in a way) made, which is that whose is perfectly acceptable grammatically even if we are talking about an inanimate object. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? Or is this another case where you like to make up your own rules, even if they are incorrect? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any committee of experts chosen to make up the rules of the English language (although there apparently is for French). Therefore, whatever rules there are, they are collectively made up by all of us (myself included). I'm not saying I would ban the use of "whose" for inanimate objects entirely, but would avoid it whenever possible. It sounds very awkward to my ears, perhaps this is a regional dialect issue ? I'm from Detroit, if that helps to identify it. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dialect issue, it shouldn't sound awkward and there's no need to avoid it. It's got nothing to do with "who", it just happens to start with those letters. "A house whose door..." is simply a contraction of "A house the door of which..." Perfectly normal, straightahead English. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whose" has nothing to do with "who" ? What ? See wiktionary:whose, which shows that "whose" is the "genitive of who". They also specifically list the "house whose..." example and say it is considered "nonstandard by some". So, I'm not the only one who finds this use awkward, am I ? StuRat (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. Some people still stick to the old rule that "who", "whom" or "whose" are used with humans only. But it's stretching it to insist on the full rule these days. I would still never say "The dog who ran though the garden is a corgi" - "that" has to be used there - but I would say "The dog, whose litter was enormous, was exhausted", because "The dog, the litter of which was enormous, ..." sounds unnatural and forced, to comply with a rule that even Fowler had long since abandoned when he was writing in 1926. Maybe some allow "whose" for animates, but draw the line at inanimates. That's another fairly arbitrary distinction. If we had a possessive form of "that", that word would be used. Some have tried to write/speak as if such a word exists - see below - but its existence is not generally recognised. So we're left with "whose". The "whose" construction is easier to say, more concise, less pedantic-sounding, and more immediately understandable and unobjectionable to the vast majority of listeners, than "of which". It's even used with abstract nouns - "Words whose letters are in alphabetical order are rare". That's not to say that "of which" has been abandoned entirely, nor should it be: it's very useful in phrases where an alternative for "about which" is called for. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why use either awkward form ? In your puppy example, why not say "The dog with the enormous litter..." ? Can you provide an example where using "whose" for an inanimate object is the only option ? StuRat (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The commas in Jack's dog example show that he intended a non-restrictive relative clause. "The dog with the enormous litter" can only be interpreted restrictively. +An gr 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always put the commas back in: "The dog, with the enormous litter, ...". Or you can rewrite it in many other ways. For example: "The dog, which incidentally had an enormous litter, ...". StuRat (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can rewrite it in many ways. But we're discussing whether "whose" can be used for non-human nouns, and I'm arguing it's fine. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm arguing that if it sounds awkward to some people, and you can phrase it in a way that doesn't, you should do so. StuRat (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Wikipedia resolved. HOOTmag (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've occasionally seen the hypercorrective (equivalent of) "the tree that's leaves are green", which comes close to causing me physical pain. This page quotes Fowler on the subject: "Let us, in the name of common sense, prohibit the prohibition of 'whose' inanimate; good writing is surely difficult enough without the forbidding of things that have historical grammar, and present intelligibility, and obvious convenience, on their side…". It also mentions his reference to the opening of Paradise Lost: "Of Man's First Disobedience, and the Fruit / Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste / Brought Death into the World" (my emphasis, of course, and the original may have "mans" rather than "man's"). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use that vile construction, it should be "the tree thats leaves are green": possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes in English. Algebraist 14:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This question, in various forms, is a regular vistor to the refdesk. (Some results of that query are false positives.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thats", with no apostrophe, is a word? It's not on any list of possessive pronouns that I know. Perhaps it is of recent vintage. // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only word containing the letters t, h, a, t and s, in that order, and no other letters, is "that's", an abbreviation meaning "that is". It's slightly pointless, ~~Angr~~ Algebraist, to argue for the non-existent apostrophe-free version, when either version is inappropriate in this context. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BL: Neither thats nor that's exists as a possessive pronoun. If either did exist, it would be thats.

Jack: What does Angr have to do with anything? Algebraist 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I meant your good self, sir. (Easy mistake to make: A, g, r in both names). My take on that is in this context, both "that's" and "thats" are utterly inappropriate, the one because it just doesn't fit, and the other because it isn't a word at all. Hypothetical words are not words; we can argue all day about what form they might take if they were words, but it's futile. Are there degrees of utter inappropriateness? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A house with a door I can see.Synchronism (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "a house of which the door I can see"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's non-English. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, you do have a permission for saying: "The house, of which the doors I can see are red, is going to be sold tomorrow". Really, it's too clumsy, yet it's definitely legitimate, isn't it? HOOTmag (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how about "a house of which the door is red"? HOOTmag (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound right to me, but I can't refer you to a precise rule that would explain why. "A house, the door of which is red" would be fine. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A house of which the door is red" sounds OK to me, though still not as good as "A house whose door is red". +An gr 12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A house of which the door is red" sounds like the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put. The version with "whose" is surely the only natural way to say this. Synchronism's "A house with a door I can see" has a subtly different meaning, as it allows for the possibility that the house might not have had a door at all. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I see a house, and I see its door." Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a red door. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what OED has to say on the topic:

Whose: 3. In reference to a thing or things (inanimate or abstract). Originally the genitive of the neuter WHAT (sense 7); in later use serving as the genitive of WHICH (senses 7 and 8), and usually replaced by of which, except where the latter would produce an intolerably clumsy form.

It cites example of such use dating back to 1382, and by writers including:

Shakespeare: "I could a Tale vnfold, whose lightest word Would harrow vp thy soule."
Milton: "Mountains on whose barren brest The labouring clouds do often rest."
Joseph Conrad: "A newspaper of sound principles, but whose staff will persist in ‘casting’ anchors."
Iris Murdoch: "Toby..marvelled at this light which is no light..and whose strength is seen only in the sharpness of cast shadows."
John Lyons: "Whether there are, or could be, two languages whose vocabularies..."
Ian McEwan: "There were pictures whose context she understood immediately."

So the use of whose in the OP's first example is certainly fine, and has a fine pedigree. The second example is ungrammatical while, to my ears, the third falls into the "intolerably clumsy" category. So I would recommend sticking with "a house whose door I see". Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best formula is "a house of which I see the door" (and the like, see below), and let me explain why:

Look at the following sentences:

"The house, whose door we see, is red, and was sold yesterday".
"The house, whose door we see is red, was sold yesterday".

What does the "is" refer to? Does it refer to the house, or to the door?

Answer: Although both sentences begin with the same words: The house whose door we see is red, the "is" in the first sentence - refers to the house, whereas the "is" in the second sentence - refers to the door!

Undoubtedly, the only way for overcoming the difficulty of that ambiguity, is by using commas, or by continuing the sentence (i.e. by adding some words after the word "red"). However, if we don't use commas, nor do we continue the sentence, we'll never be able to exert the full meaning of the first words: The house whose door we see is red.

That ambiguity, which is typical in sentences using phrases like "whose door", could be avoided if one replaced the word "whose" by "of which": Thus, the two sentences would look like:

"The house, of which we see the door, is red, and was sold yesterday".
"The house, of which the door we see is red, was sold yesterday".

Note that even when we drop the commas, and add no words after the word "red", the "is" must refer to the house - in the first sentence, and to the door - in the second sentence, so no ambiguity arises!

Conclusion: The first step for making sure that the sentence has only one meaning, is: avoiding the "whose"!

HOOTmag (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that analysis is that you're taking a single example and making your proposed solution apply to all examples where "whose" might be a candidate. You can't extrapolate from the particular to the general (nor, in many cases involving language, the other way either). For the record, I intensely dislike "The house, of which we see the door ...", and I would never say or write it, not even to save my life. It's just as valid to have:

"The house, whose door we see, is red, and was sold yesterday" and
"The house, whose door we see is red, was sold yesterday". -- JackofOz (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "the house of which I see the door", +An gr disagrees with you: please see his opinion here (the current thread) at 13:23, on 13 July 2009. Of course, I don't intend to claim that his position is better than yours, but I found it important to emphasize your dispute.

Regarding my "extrapolation" (as you've put it), I'm sorry, but you missed my point! I've never claimed that using "whose" is illegitimate: In most cases it's definitely legal! I just noted that "The first step for making sure that the sentence has only one meaning, is avoiding the whose". you see? just "for making sure", i.e. for avoiding any undesirable case, e.g phrases like "the house whose door we see is red", when one drops the commas and doesn't continue the sentence (thus not enabling the reader to decide whether the is refers to the house or to the door). Your examples use commas, so they are legitimate, of course.

HOOTmag (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German

What does this mean: "erhöht bei benutzung die stufe eines heldem um 10"?174.3.103.39 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Increases hero's level by 10 when used". Playing a German-language RPG? -- Ferkelparade π 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does Heldem mean? Yea, I was playing warcraft 3.174.3.103.39 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Heldem" is (most probably) a typo for "Helden", the genitive form of "Held" (meaning "hero"). -- Ferkelparade π 08:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you say Regina?

Regina Benjamin will probably be the new US Surgeon General. I just edited the article a bit. How does one usually say "Regina". Is it like Re Geena? Or rhymes with vagina?

How does one say Regina as in Regina, Saskatchewan. WP has the phonetics but I don't know how to read that style.

Question one: woman's name Regina. Question two: city of Regina.

Thank you. User F203 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the city, the "Re" part is pronounced either like the first part of "red" or "rid", and the "gina" rhymes with Dinah (or the 2nd part of vagina), with the stress on the 2nd syllable. So Reh-JIE-na or Ri-JIE-na. Not sure about the name, but I'd assume it's the same. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. I've known a few women named Regina in my life, and they all pronounced it re-JEE-na. +An gr 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, my wife among them. She finds the vagina-rhyming pronunciation objectionable. I think this may be a US-vs-UK/Canada difference. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backing up Flyguy649 here:

The city is "Reg-eye-na".
The word, used to mean "Queen" (as in Elizabeth Regina) is pronounced the same
People are allowed to choose how their names are pronounced. Any adolescent girl spending five minutes in a playground would probably choose Reg-ee-na, for reasons made clear by Flyguy649. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be a US vs UK/Canada thing. Since the US doesn't have the Queen as head of state, Americans are probably comparatively unfamiliar with expressions like "Elizabeth Regina" (re-JYE-na), not to mention being unfamiliar with Regina, Saskatchewan. On the other hand, the largest single Christian denomination the US is Roman Catholicism, and Catholics (especially those who grew up before Vatican II) will be quite familiar with "Regina Coeli" and "Salve Regina" and so forth, and those, being Ecclesiastical Latin, are pronounced "re-JEE-na". And the pronunciation of a girl's name is usually decided by her parents years before she has ever stepped foot in a junior high school or heard of a vagina. +An gr 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I named a daughter Regina (which I wouldn't), I would use (and encourage her to use) the Latin-esque pronunciation just to prevent these, umm... obvious school-yard monikers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree with all of the above. I thought, but wasn't sure, than the girl's name in the US is one way and Regina, Sask. is the other way. I wasn't sure if the city was vagina, but thought it probably was. User F203 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you're composing a limerick, it's pretty clear which pronunciation to use... -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's Re-gee-na in Latin is it not? I remember the "R" in case citations being introduced to as as coming from "Rex/Regina" (re-gee-na) at law school... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hard G is the classical pronunciation (well...probably). Ecclesiastical Latin has long pronounced it as a J (and the hymn Regina Coeli that Angr linked to could be pronounced like "rejeena chelly"). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question, a reporter on NPR mentioned Regina Benjamin this morning and said it "re-JEE-na". +An gr 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its pronunciation in Latin depends entirely on which Latin pronunciation you espouse. Classical Latin must have had something like [regi:na], Church Latin something like [redʒi:na] and (English) legal Latin [rɪdʒaɪnə]. --ColinFine (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the album Soviet Kitsch, Regina Spektor is called "re-gee-na" by someone else on one track. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But she's Russian; she probably pronounces it that way herself. +An gr 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Регина is pronounced with a hard g - Re-geena. It's a very uncommon Russian name, but it does occur. Whereas, I'd be very surprised if any Russian has ever been named Реджина - Re-dzheena. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of Spain

Reading the Languages of Spain article, I started wondering about spanish given names. Do people from Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque country (and possibly others) have regional translations of given names? I know that, technically speaking, translated forms exist: for example the castilian José (Joseph) is localized as Josep in Catalan, Xosé in Galician and Asturian, Chusep in Aragonese and Joseba in Basque. What I mean is: is it a normal/diffuse/marginal/nonexistent habit to be christened with local forms? Do people have only official castilian names and use their regional one only in informal situations? Do they have a double name registration? Can they freely choose to have a regional name? And if so, how many people have translated names?
I'm asking it also because in other countries with local languages/dialects, people almost always have standard given names. For example, in Italy, Giuseppe is the universally accepted form for Joseph, dialectal (Friulian, Sardinian, Neapolitan...) forms exist as well but they are never official registered.
N.B.: I'm also curious about spanish family names. --151.51.50.16 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they need to translate their names? If you would be named Joseph you wouldn't translate your name if you moved to Spain. If someone was given a Catalan name then they'd use it. Only in some circumstances like someone wants to show patriotism and was named in Spanish by his/her parents I could think they might apply for a name change or use a Catalan translation instead. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not uncommon to be called a local version of your name in some Spanish speaking areas. I've known Johns who were called Juan when visiting South America, for example, and Marys who were called Maria. Steewi (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long-running talk page debate (going back to about 2006!) about whether it's correct to refer to the Catalan Pablo Casals as such, or as Pau Casals. Apparently, it was originally Pau, but became Pablo in other parts of Spain and in the rest of the world. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Peter Lorre's original name is given as László here and at IMDb but I think I've also seen Ladislaus. —Tamfang (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my statements weren't clear enough. Let me try to explain my original question: are children born in ((insert every spanish region with a local language other than castilian)) officially christened with local forms? Is it a common custom or is it a marginal or non existent one? (for example: 99.999% of catalan children gets only a catalan name, while galician names are totally nonexistent). Basically I'm asking for an explanation of the onomastic situation of Spain regarding the official recognition of local languages. It would be amazing if you could reread my first post in the light of these considerations. Please note that I haven's asked if a foreign person living in Spain is requested to change his name. :-) --151.51.2.141 (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is as much a political as a language question. During the Franco regime local languages were suppressed. There has been a period of renewal, but in at least one survey of children and young adults in Catalonia they identified castellano as the language they were most likely to use in conversation, despite the fact that they said català as their native tongue. Pau/Pablo Casals and others may well have been forced to use the Spanish form during the Franco regime. As I said above in such cases the local version may be chosen "because they now can" in an act of patriotism. For babies both forms seem to be popular. e.g.[1]. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]