Language desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 23

a Ship is a she? or a it?

Is it correct that a ship is the only object in the English language that is described as a "she" rather then a "it" ? 89.138.239.178 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the only one. Many other vehicles can be described as "she", and there are other things as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all of ten days since this was last discussed here. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a regular question. Shall we put the answer up at the top of this page so people don't have to ask? :) --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 13:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there, or could there be, a section or page that lists succinct answers to frequently asked ref desk questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure there could be. There are pages for funny articles which were deleted for whatever reason but archived because of their sheer hilarity. I don't see why somebody can't make a collection of frequently asked questions, because at least that would be useful and informative. Go for it, Bugs! --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt people will actually look at it before posting their questions. But it might still be useful for answering them (instead of having to dig up a link to the last iteration of the discussion, you'd just be able to go "see the Frequently asked questions on the Reference Desks" or something like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are unlikely to notice it, but the ref desk regulars would know about it and could maintain it and point questioners to it. I would restrict it to questions that have definitive and unarguable facts. Although I'm not sure there was a definitive answer to this particular question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely would be useful to maintain such a list and point people to the FAQs...--71.111.194.50 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC) (达伟)[reply]

Hello. I'm the French guy who asked a question on the same subject 10 days ago. Reading that this is a frequent question, I think that it could be explained in an article of the full wikipedia to which you could send people. Thank you for all your care. Joël Deshaies-Rheims-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Imagine that. Put the information in an existing article rather than inventing a new article. Don'cha just hate it when the questioners are smarter than the so-called answerers? :) Since there are often new citations discovered in connection with questions, those citations could find a place in an appropriate article. In this case, it might be on a "she" disambiguation page, although the problem still exists that while it's easy to verify that "she" is used to denote ships (with affection, as Bus Stop notes below), the why seems to be conjectural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we do have gender in English, which says "A notable exception is that ships, cars and nations are also sometimes referred to as she." The problem seems to be that people wanting to answer questions like the OP has above may not find an intuitive path to that article. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"She" would be an affectionate term for referring to ships. <-- original research Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much. Oh, it likely started that way, I imagine. But the feminine pronouns are/were used for enemy ships just as readily as for one's own. Similarly for countries. --Trovatore (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of airplanes, I would use "she" in the context of "she's been good to us" but if I didn't like the airplane I fly, or was annoyed because something broke, I would quite possibly not refer to it as "she." Note that I do like the airplane I fly, but that doesn't mean that I consistantly call it a "she". Falconus^{p t c} 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but that's an informal usage of your own. Airplanes are not traditionally referred to as she in official or otherwise formal writing, whereas ships are. There is no particular emotion attached to the usage; it's just the way it's said (or in any case used to be said). --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English, ships are called "she". In German, they're "he". Go figure. PhGustaf (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In German though, many words have a specific gender to begin with. The word "ship" in English is gender neutral, but we give it a personality. I'm guessing in German that the word "ship" or "boat" is inherently masculine? If so, it would be much stranger to call 'him' "her". In French do you refer to a boat (bateau, m.) as a "he"? Falconus^{p t c} 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in German, all nouns have a "specific gender". That gender may be neuter. Gender is a grammatical term; the contemporary usage to mean sex is a distressing development. --Trovatore (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Somehow, it's become un-PC to refer to someone's "sex" and we have to use "gender". Why? Maybe because "sex" more often than means "sexual activity". But hell, we get by with all manner of words that have different meanings in different contexts, so what are the PC Police getting all uptight about? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender" means socially constructed roles for men and women. It's an identity people acquire, it's learned and it changes over time. It does not mean biological differences between men and women, that's "sex". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply dislike that usage and refuse to use it. --Trovatore (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in elementary school, back in that one-roomed schoolhouse on the prairie with cows wandering through the break room and so on, "gender" was used exclusively with grammar. "Waiter" vs. "waitress", for example - masculine gender vs. feminine gender. "Sex" was male and female - biologically, socially, whatever. I can't say when "gender" started to creep in as a synonym for "sex", but it likely speaks to the PC "socially constructed roles" topic that started to become prominently discussed during the 1970s or so - yet it also speaks to the latent prudishness or "puritanism" that still infests America. Possibly influenced by jokes (of the Reader's Digest variety) where a survey will say "Sex" and the responder will write, "3 times a week", or some such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what PhGustaf means. In German, both Schiff and Boot are neuter, so the pronoun used for them is es ("it"). And when a ship is referred to by its name, the name is invariably feminine ("die Enterprise", etc.). +An gr 07:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English and in my 40s and have never heard anyone refer to an object like a ship or car as 'she'. Yes I've seen it in (old) films and can believe it may still happen but it's not common. It would only be said of something for which the speaker had sentimental affection and so would have to be she as otherwise the (presumed male) speaker would be expressing affection for something male and thereby compromising their sexuality :) My point is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar or the (non-existent) gender of the object and I recommend all non-native speakers to simply use 'it'. TheMathemagician (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the usage for ships has nothing to do with sentiment or affection; it's just the traditional pronoun for ships. For cars, no, that would have to be sentiment. But for ships you will find it in formal writing, whereas for cars you won't. --Trovatore (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely formalised. Even monarchs and other high personages, when they christen ships with champagne, say "May God bless her and all who sail in her". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tejas, en español

How do you say en español, "Texas belongs to Mexico; we should probably give Texas back to Mexico"? Many Thanks, 72.72.18.251 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you plan on saying that to? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Probablemente deberíamos devolver Texas a México.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions in aiding some likely plan for vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism plans, thanks. Just some friendly off-wiki lulz. Thanks, 72.72.18.251 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Texas Texas in Spanish, then? Someone once told me it was Tejas. Marnanel (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wikipedia's article is at es:Texas and gives Tejas as an alternative spelling. The article says that the Real Academia Española recommends the spelling with "x". But both spellings are pronounced as if spelled "Tejas". +An gr 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time in Spanish, where X is pronounced like J (roughly like the Greek chi, which is an X), there have been attempts to change it, as with "Tejas" and "Mejico" and "Don Quijote", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the whole sentence: "Texas pertenece a Mexico. Probablemente deberíamos devolverlo (or devolver Texas) a Mexico." Steewi (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, please

El 1252 el rei de França va declarar que Montpeller era feu francès. El 1276 Jaume I de Catalunya-Aragó, fill de Pere, va donar en testament la senyoria i el regne de Mallorca al seu fill Jaume II de Mallorca al qual li exigiren vassallatge al seu germà Pere II rei de Catalunya-Aragó i el rei de França. El 1293 el bisbe va cedir el seus drets feudals sobre Montpeller al rei de França i així el rei mallorquí va esdevenir feudatari immediat del rei francès. Finalment el 1342 el rei de Mallorca va retre homenatge per la senyoria al rei francès i quant fou desposseït del seu regne el 1344 només li va restar Montpeller. El 13 d'abril de 1349 Jaume III va vendre la senyoria i baronia de Montpeller i la baronia d'Omeladès al rei de França. El rei de Catalunya-Aragó, Pere III, va renunciar als seus drets el 1351. El 1371 el rei de França va cedir la senyoria a Carles II de Navarra que la va posseir efectivament tan sols el 1372, i el 1378 en fou desposseït. El 1381 el rei la va retornar a Carles, fill de Carles II de Navarra, però un any després li va confiscar i es va reincorporar a la corona francesa (Carles hi va renunciar pel Tractat de Paris de 1404).

From Google Translate with some help from me:

"In 1252 the king of France stated that Montpellier was then French. In 1276 James I of Catalonia-Aragon, son of Peter, willed the lordship and kingdom of Majorca to his son James II of Majorca, which required vassalage to his brother King Peter II of Catalonia-Aragon and the king of France. In 1293 the bishop gave the feudal rights of Montpellier to the king of France and the king of Majorca became immediate feudatory the French king. Finally in 1342 the king of Majorca paid tribute to the lordship to the French king and when he was stripped of his kingdom in 1344 only Montpellier remained to him. On 13 April 1349 James III sold the lordship and barony of Montpellier and the barony of Omeladès to the King of France. The King of Catalonia-Aragon, Peter III, renounced his rights in 1351. In 1371 the French king gave the lordship to Charles II of Navarre, who actually possessed it only in 1372, and was dispossessed in 1378. In 1381 the king returned it to Charles, son of Charles II of Navarre, but a year later it was seized and returned to the French crown (Charles was renounced by the Treaty of Paris, 1404)."

I don't actually know Catalan, but between Spanish, Portuguese, and French (and Google) I think it's close. But there may still be (in fact, probably still are) mistakes in it. +An gr 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "va+infinitive" the same as it is in French? (It looks like some sort of composed past contruction here, of course.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, confusingly enough "va + infinitive" in Catalan is a past tense, not a future tense as it is in French. "Ella va portar" and "Elle va porter" look a lot a like, and each word is cognate to its correspondent in the other language, but the former means "She carried" and the latter means "She is going to carry". Worse yet, in colloquial Catalan (according to my Catalan grammar book written in German - I reiterate that I don't actually speak Catalan myself), if you put the preposition "a" between the "va" and the infinitive, then it does mean "going to". So "Ella va portar" means "She carried" but "Ella va a portar" means "She is going to carry". And if Catalan merges vowels together across word boundaries the way Spanish does, then those two sentences are pronounced the same. +An gr 15:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]