Language desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 8

Treaty of Portsmouth places

Article VI [1] " the railway between Chang-chunfu and Kuanchangtsu and Port Arthur"

I need to indentify the two places - but I think the transliteration is not modern (they may be obscure places). Can someone reverse translated these so that I can find them on a map or wikipedia. They might be on this map scroll down ? Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that Chang-chunfu is Changchun which is not that far from Dalian (Port Arthur), a rail link still exists between the two. Nanonic (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And our article on the South Manchuria Railway seems to be saying that Kuanchangtsu was Kuancheng. Nanonic (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And Kuanchangtsu is almost certainly Kuancheng, which Changchung#The railway era says used to be known as Kuanchengtze and was the site of the first railway station in the area. Deor (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, theyr are 長春（寛城子）旅順口[2]. 長春 is Changchun. 寛城子 certainly refers to Kuancheng District (寛城). 旅順口 is Lüshunkou District, which was known as Port Arthur. --Kusunose 02:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Resolved

Kuanchengtsu would be spelt in pinyin as "Kuanchengzi", which would have been the old name for Kuancheng, and Chang-chunfu is Changchun Fu, Fu being an old Chinese administrative unit which still survives in some Japanese administrative units. See Zhou (country subdivision) which discusses the Fu unit. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with plural nouns treated as singular?

There are quite few a nouns in English better known by their plural forms. (eg. data, regalia)

I'm curious as to whether treating these nouns as uniformly plural would yield a bad result.

eg. "Mathematics are my favorite subject.", "The physics behind his theory dictate that it is valid", or "Our data suggest that this remains unlikely for now."

While these may be "proper," do they constitute standard English? Or would they appear wrong to the typical reader (or at least, pedantic)? Pine (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately thought of culinary terms from Italian. We might say "These gnocchi are superb", but we wouldn't say "These spaghetti/linguini/macaroni ... are superb". Just one minor example of where applying a blanket rule would not work. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When holes are punched in paper, the residue that is created is often called chad, which seems to be a mass noun. What should a single piece of that residue be called? How about a confetto? :-) —Bkell (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall from the controversy of a close election in Florida a while back that 'chad' is also used in the singular and that the plural form 'chads' can be employed - "hanging chads" were headline news for a while, much to the chagrin of a friend of mine whose forename is Chad. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the word "agenda", which is technically the plural of "agendum" (which refers to one of the items on the agenda), but which is so commonly used as a singular noun that it has its own plural, "agendas". —Bkell (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These words that use foreign plural markers obviously have difficulty registering as plural with English speakers. I'd say that it all depends on the speaker (a scientist would be more used to "the data are what they are" than a layman). However, certain Latinate plural markers like in cacti, alumnae, etc (I can't think of any that appear largely as plural) are much better recognized by English speakers. The more prescriptive you go, the more you'd want to treat these words as only allowed to be grammatically plural. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 05:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In writing, the correct grammatical number matching is fine. I wouldn't call it 'standard', (from a descriptivist perspective) because, as others point out, these words are increasingly treated as linguistic singulars (especially 'physics'). In speech, these phrases would seem pedantic to me. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the examples discussed here are collective nouns and as such can be plural or singular depending on the context. For example Agenda/agendum - an agenda is a list (singular) of items, each of which is an agendum (singular). Others are clearly mass nouns - spaghetti, etc. Collective nouns may be singular or plural depending on the context or even the variety of English, while mass nouns are usually singular unless distinct different masses (different plates or varieties/brands of spaghetti) are the topic of the sentence. Roger (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking whether using the language in a way that people generally don't would "yield a bad result". What sort of bad result did you have in mind? --ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any better words for "OCR'ing" and "combining OCR-result and immage"?

I need a little help to improve my English %-p
1. Is there an English word, or short expression, that is used for denoting the process of both first making a machine readable text, by using optical character recognition on a scanned immage of a text, and then combining the OCR-result and the immage into a single two-layered PDF file?
2. Is there a better word/expression for the verb "to OCR"?
3. Is there a word or expression with meaning 1. (above) but that incorporates the scanning part of the process too?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any words that mean exactly what you are asking for, but the terms vectorization and conversion have related meanings. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your audience knows the context perhaps "textualization" would work for the OCR process? and as a pair "digitalization and textualization" for scanning and OCR? If they likewise know the context "layering a PDF" would be pretty unambiguous I'd think, it's obvious you refer to adding the machine-readable layer to the PDF? 65.29.47.55 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undocumented hand gesture?

i am looking for the name of a hand gesture. it is performed by halfway extending an arm with your palm 45 degrees inwards, then paddling your hand at a rate of about twice a second as if you were paddling the steam away from a hot soup. the paddling is done more to the side than towards your chest. it's a sort of paddling, swaying movement with a bit of rotation in the hand.

i've seen it done as a sign of disapproval or disbelief performed mainly by my grandmother who is greek. you can assume it is a greek gesture but maybe not. it can be accompanied by raising the bottom lip or vocalizing 'tsk tsk tsk' (more than three times often enough) especially if being told about something tragic. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's list of gestures isn't very comprehensive. This sounds like it might either be a shooing gesture like you make to get an animal or child to go away (maybe used like how you say "get away" or "away with you" when someone is being silly or exaggerating), or maybe a gesture of fanning something hot, indicating she wants you to cool down. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is information about Greek hand gestures here and here. Any help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no they aren't listed on this page. it could very well be too obscure to be noted. it is similar to shooing away but done inwards instead, so in reverse in other words. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about just asking Grandma? Roger (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of Mercedes-Benz?

Is the plural of Mercedes-Benz "Mercedes-Benzes", as in "I have two Mercedes-Benzes." or is it more proper to say "I have two Mercedes-Benz cars." and keep the brand name singular?--十八 05:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be strictly correct, all brand names are supposed to be adjectives; so only your last option is the correct one. One way that companies combat trademark genericization is to ensure that their brand is only uses as an adjective; thus "Band-aid brand bandages" and "Xerox photocopiers" are the preferred usage by the companies themselves to avoid people genercizing the terms "Band-aid" to mean any self-adhesive bandage or "Xerox" to refer to the photocopying machine in general, or even the act of photocopying (everyone has heard "Let me xerox that for you." This is, of course by no means universal, as one often hears in commercials "Buy a Mercedes-Benz today!" instead of the more correct "Buy a Mercedes-Benz car today"; that's probably because there's little danger that the brand name "Mercedes-Benz" could be genercized to mean "car" the way that Xerox and Band-aid have become. --Jayron32 05:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: many companies now insist that their brand names should be used as adjectives, but not all. Coca-Cola is still a noun, for instance. I'm still waiting to see a court case where someone argues "Look, this company insists that their brand name is now an adjective, yet the public keeps using it as a noun even when they really mean the specific brand. They have obviously lost control of their trademark and it should be declared generic."

The answer to the original question is that "Mercedes-Benzes" would be utterly standard in everyday conversation or writing, but "Mercedes-Benz cars" (or "Mercedes-Benz vehicles" or whatever -- they don't just make cars) is better in formal usage. --Anonymous, 08:55 UTC, February 8, 2011.

Am I the only one who keeps thinking a more proper form would be "Mercedeses-Benz"? =) JIP | Talk 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in 'the Wabenzi drive Mercedeses-Benz'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Governors-General drive Mercedeses-Benz". :) Except they're more likely to be driven by chauffers driving Bentleys or Rollses. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

In "Governors-General" the "General" is functioning as a modifier of "Governors" but "Benz" is not a modifier of "Mercedes". Roger (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

No rides for us

In the top of a bus

All alone in the freezing breezes

You'll reach your goals

In your comfy old Rolls

Or in one of your Mercedeses

From The Sound of Music (stage version)

--Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since both words already end in /z/, I would probably be completely fine with hearing just "Mercedes-Benz" as a plural in conversation — print or formal speech would be a different matter. There I'd probably go with the workaround using it as an adjective and pluralizing 'cars'. Lexicografía (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We say "three lenses", not "three lens". Why not "three ...Benzes"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a lens manufacturer named Benz. His lenses might be called "Benz's lenses". An individual lens might be called colloquially "a Benz's". A group of them would then be "Benz'ses". :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sure Gollum would have Benz'ses in his glasseses. --Antiquary (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, don't get me started on the people who use "len" as a singular!

What's he got in his pocketses? Only some Benz'ses lenszesz glasseszessz. Good Lord... Lexicografía (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Jingtang's father

So the book says Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin's father's name is 臬捩雞. Is that Nielie Ji, Nie Lieji, Nielieji, Nie Lie Ji, or what? Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 08:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Chinese Wikipedia article on Shi Jingtang's father at zh:石绍雍, which quotes the Old History of the Five Dynasties as follows: "《旧五代史·高祖本纪一》：“皇考讳绍雍，番字臬捩鸡...”", which seems to say "the Emperor's father's name was Shaoyong, and his foreign/ethnic name was Nielieji" - i.e. that Nielieji was a given name, the way Lau Tak-Wah's foreign/ethnic name is "Andy". If you trace the succession box at the bottom of that article up, you will find that Shi Jingtang's ancestors all had Chinese-sounding names. I'm not if this means Nielieji was unique in the family, or that the "foreign" names of the ancestors had been whitewashed from history. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the book says Shi Jingtang changed his surname to Shi at some unknown point of time. They were Shatuo Turks, so maybe they all sinicised their names so the history books recorded the Chinese names instead of the Shatuo ones? I'll see if there are more replies. If all else fails I'll go with Nielieji. :D Kayau Voting IS evil 13:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's 左射軍?　Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 13:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's Shi Jingtang's job title right? It seems to be the name of a royal guard unit which he commanded. Some sources say that it is a cavalry unit, although the name literally suggests "Left Archer Corps". From googling, some sources describe it as an elite, cavalry guard unit well known for the riders' prowess for shooting from the left arm (and thus are ambidextrous in archery). I don't think 左射軍 is a title per se, since in some sources (based on the Zizhi Tongjian his job title appears as 左射軍使, which is perhaps something like "the superintendent of the Left Archer Corps". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll use Left Archer Corps but add a  next to it then. Thanks again Kayau Voting IS evil 13:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]