Language desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

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.

March 4

Two chameleons or four?

Here are two brief quotations:

- "the two chameleons on both sides of the great facade"

- "two chameleons can be found at either side of the façade"

The first is from a source document, the second is in our article Sagrada Família, about a remarkable church in Barcelona, Spain. The chameleons in question are stone carvings so they are immobile.

I can't tell from these quotations if there are two chameleons, one on each side of the facade OR two on each side for a total of four chameleons. The question is, are the quotations clear or ambiguous? And if they are clear, what do they say?

This question relates to a good-natured discussion on Talk:Sagrada Família. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the second statement is ambiguous. To me, it states that there are altogether four chameleons, two on each side of the façade. The first statement is slightly ambiguous, but generally I would take it to mean the same thing as the second statement. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, we know many people would say something like the first sentence to disclose that there were two in total, one on each side. They often interchange "each" and "both", with infelicitous results. They might also say the second sentence to communicate exactly the same thing, instead of "two chameleons can be found, one at either side of the façade". So, I'd want to know who was making the statement before I decided how best to interpret it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too can see the second statement as ambiguous. It's like the common confusion about bimonthly (twice a month? every two months?). You can't do anything about the source, but as Jack suggests it wouldn't take much to change the article to make the reality clearer (if you can determine from visits or photos just how many chameleons are not scampering about the place) --- OtherDave (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

According to the article the creatures in question appear at the Nativity Facade. I don't know if any of the photographs in "commons:Category:Nativity Facade of Sagrada Familia" are helpful. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't answer the question of how many there are, but one of the buggers can be seen in File:Barcelona 250.JPG, just to the right of the topmost of the three trefoil windows (or windowlike decorations—it's hard to tell) along the lower left edge of the image. Deor (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a message can be left at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain" asking for a volunteer in Barcelona to have a look ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see sentence two as ambiguous; the implied (apparently wrong) meaning is that there are four chamaleons altogether.

I agre with JackLee analysis about the first phrase. So, we are left with the impression that there are four creatures.
Let's check context:

For instance, the three porticos are separated by two large columns, and at the base of each lies a turtle or a tortoise (one to represent the land and the other the sea; each are symbols of time as something set in stone and unchangeable). In contrast to the figures of turtles and their symbolism, two chameleons can be found at either side of the façade, and are symbolic of change.

Here, context (at least to me) suggests that there two of them, in relation with the number of turtles. And it is indeed the case, as the pictorial book Templo Expiatorio de la Sagrada Familia shows on page 57 (one on the Portico of Faith, and the other on the Portico of Hope). This web reference also talks of two turtles and two chamaleons. Pallida Mors 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biweekly, bimonthly, biannual

I was surprised to see in Chambers dictionary, to which I bow in all matters regarding the English language, that there is so much flexibility regarding the above words. I always took biweekly to mean "every two weeks" (i.e. fortnightly), bimonthly to mean "every two months" and biannual to mean "every two years". But Chambers tells me that while these meanings are certainly possible, it is also possible to use biweekly to mean "twice a week", bimonthly to mean "twice a month" and biannual to mean "twice a year". Interestingly, there is another word biennial which can only mean "every two years" and thus should be used instead of biannual when "every two years" is intended, to remove ambiguity. But there is no equivalent word for weeks and months. It seems to me as though biweekly, bimonthly and biannual should be avoided and "twice a week", "fortnightly" or some other construction used instead. Any other thoughts or comments? --Viennese Waltz 14:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only ever use those terms when talking about seeds and their growing times. Other wise I would say "twice per month", "twice per year", and "every two years", to name a few. 216.120.192.143 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, when it came time to re-negotiate our mortgage, the wife and I had to choose between paying bi-weekly instalments and bi-monthly instalments. "Bi-weekly" meaning we'd have to make 26 payments a year (i.e. every two weeks) versus "bi-monthly" meaning we'd make 24 payments a year (i.e. twice a month). Matt Deres (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an ambiguity in common usage with "biweekly" and "bimonthly" and you have to make sure you get the right meaning. The same thing is true for phrases like "next Monday" which (said on March 4) could mean March 7 or March 14 depending on the speaker. The payroll that Matt Deres had "bimonthly" is also called "semimonthly", which is unambiguous. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd always use "semi-" for half the period, which is clear. If "bi-" is ambiguous, I'd just say "every 2 years/months/weeks". StuRat (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's clear and unambiguous to you guys, but I would have no idea what it meant. To my mind, "semi-" just means "partly" (i.e. less than half) and it's usually used to denote something fractional (semi-conductor, semi-sweet, etc.) so saying that something is semi-monthly would make me think it's something that doesn't happen exactly monthly, but perhaps once every few months. But that's just me trying to parse it right now; I don't think I've heard that term before. When I need to be clear, I just say "twice monthly". Matt Deres (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Matt. I was thinking "semi-weekly" obviously meant reducing the period and thus increasing the frequency, whereas you see it as reducing the frequency, and thus increasing the period, which is an equally valid interpretation. On the other hand, if something occurred every 10 days, it would never occur to me to call it "semi-weekly". Not sure how I would label it, actually; I'd probably abandon labels and spell it out exactly. If it occurred every 5 days, I might be tempted to call it "semi-weekly". But such a label would be of no use if the exact period was required. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something that will never become exactly unambiguous. The problem is that we are given two things, a number and a fixed-length period. We are missing a third thing - whether we are supposed to multiply or divide the period with the number. Both are equally valid interpretations. I suppose we have to do with words like "forthnightly" and "quarterly". JIP | Talk 21:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In British english you would say "every fortnight" rather than "every two weeks". 92.29.127.85 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might, or you might say "every two weeks". Both are in common use in British English. --Viennese Waltz 08:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word order

Does this sentence below sound right (regarding word order) to you? "The Spanish Economy website provides access to the latest key economic information on Spain in English in a clear and comprehensive manner." If the order is wrong, what rule does apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.238 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. The text "on Spain in English" sounds slightly funny to me, so if I were writing this, I would probably either change it to "on Spain, in English," (two commas added) or possibly move "in English" to the end of the sentence. But it's readable as-is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Comet Tuttle and the comma suggestion. I might tweak "on Spain" to "about Spain," but that would be just to eliminate having "on" and "in" so close to each other. "...economic information about Spain, in English, in a clear and comprehensive manner." --- OtherDave (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about "The Spanish Economy website provides access to the latest key economic information in English about Spain in a clear and comprehensive manner."? 212.169.184.47 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, too, but now I'd add commas before and after "about Spain". The reason is that this is a change in direction in the sentence, from talking about the subject of the article to the language in which it is presented. It doesn't matter what order those two concepts are listed, as commas are needed to signal a change in direction, either way. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that sentence seems a bit long, to me. Is the phrase "access to" needed ? If you mean that it provides links to the info, rather than providing it directly, then maybe it is important, although you might want to say that explicitly. Do you need the word "key" ? Could "information" be shortened to "info" or "data" ? And, finally, "comprehensive" seems like a bit of a stretch, as that would mean that this site has every bit of economic data on Spain that exists. A similar comment applies to "the latest"; can you guarantee that all new economic data on Spain is added on the day it is published ? So, here's my version: "The Spanish Economy website provides current economic data on Spain, in English, presented in a clear manner." The "presented in a clear manner" part, is, of course, opinion, and not fact, so only include that where opinions are desired. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that when saying "comprehensive"(complete/exhaustive), what you really had in mind was "comprehensible"(understandable)? As the latter would convey more or less the same meaning as "presented in a clear manner", this allows for further shortening down the sentence. If we moved that term to the first part of the sentence, we might get something like this: "The Spanish Economy website provides current and comprehensible economic data on Spain, in English."--DI (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you are bothered with that last comma (makes the sentence a bit stilted, perhaps?), it might help moving the terms "on Spain" and "in English" farther apart: "The Spanish Economy website provides current and comprehensible Spanish economic data in English."--DI (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still add a comma, after "data", in this case. StuRat (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "irakere" mean, exactly?

According to our article on Irakere, the word means "vegetation" in Yoruba. According to other sources (on the band), it means "forest" or "jungle". I couldn't find the word in any online Yoruba-English dictionary. If anyone speaks the language or has access to a Yoruba dictionary, I'd like to know which meanings are possible for this word, and how it is actually spelled in Yoruba. Thanks in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irukere, iruexim, eruquerê and other variants is the Yoruba name for a horse-hair or cow tail whip which is the symbol of Oxossi, spirit of the forest and often a symbol of kingship/royalty. I expect this is where the name came from, whether there are folk tales that link it more directly I am not sure, perhaps the whip was originally vegetation or represented the plants. meltBanana 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has no direct bearing on the OPs question, but for the sake of curiosity, in Danish the word "irakere" would literally translate to English as "Iraqis". --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! (I had had no idea my title would be misleading to some of you :-) Wiktionarywise, I only found it on Nynorsk Wiktionary, as a Bokmål entry. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, meltBanana. The spiritual "irukere Ifá" connection certainly sounds plausible (and is one that didn't occur to me at all). It's just strange that I found not a single hit for either "Irakere" + "irukere" nor + "iruexim", nor + "eruquerê" (and I tried specifically searching Spanish language sites too). Maybe I'll have to e-mail Chucho Valdés. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]