Language desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 12 >

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.

April 11

Chinese names for places in North Korea?

Kim Chaek University of Technology gives what appear to me to be Chinese versions of the names of certain places at the university. Is it common for Chinese characters to be used for names of places in North Korea? I understand that Korean was formerly written in Chinese characters, but the university is far newer than the Hangul, so I'm guessing that these aren't old names. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not Chinese version. They are Korean names written in hanja and the pronunciation of those names is different from Chinese. I don't think the names in hanja are used in North Korea today as NK abandoned the general use of hanja soon after independence. See also Korean mixed script, Sino-Korean vocabulary, and Sino-Xenic. The names in hangul should be needed in the article, but at the same time, the hanja names are correct. Oda Mari (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend -- before the late 19th century, Hangul generally had only somewhat niche uses, and the great majority of writing in Korea was done in Chinese characters. "Seoul" is infamously one of the few significant Korean place names which does not have a traditional Chinese-character counterpart. However, Chinese characters are relegated to a strictly-historical role only in writing the Korean language in North Korea, and they are more decorative than truly functional in current South Korean practices... AnonMoos (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about punctuation (again)

Can someone tell me if the punctuation is correct in the sentence below? I know (—) are supposed to be used for an interrupting train of thought, but I'm not too sure how to handle them when it comes to commas:

This emphasis on Manjusri’s scholarly abilities is not only based on his position as the Bodhisattva of Wisdom—derived from his mention in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (c. 100 BCE), but his appearance in the Vimalakirti Sutra (c. 100).

Or, should it be...

... Bodhisattva of Wisdom—derived from his mention in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (c. 100 BCE)—but his appearance in the Vimalakirti Sutra (c. 100).

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second one. You wouldn't switch from the dash to the comma, you need a pair of dashes. The comma is kind of redundant here since its purpose, to provide a break in the sentence, is served by the second dash. --Viennese Waltz 04:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German sein in the past tense

I'm confused as to the difference between the German verb sein (to be) in the preterite ("Ich war") and perfect ("Ich bin gewesen") tenses. Preterite#German is not much help. Could someone explain the difference, and give me an example of a sentence in which each would be used? Many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 11:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the time they're interchangeable - and not just for sein but for all verbs. In the southern part of the German language area, the simple preterite is used very little, but it's fairly common in the northern part. Thus in explaining why one was absent from work or school, someone from Berlin or Hamburg will be more likely to say "Ich war krank", while someone from Vienna, Munich, or Stuttgart will be more likely to say "Ich bin krank gewesen". I would strongly disagree with what Preterite#German says, "Use in speech is regarded as snobbish and thus very uncommon." That may be true in the south, but here in Berlin, the preterite is quite common in everyday speech and isn't snobbish at all. But it is true that in the northern varieties (and the standard written language), the perfect is used when you want to emphasize the consequences that a past action or state has on the present. So in the north, a speaker might distinguish between Ich war krank ("I was sick, and it's over now and no longer has an effect on my life") and Ich bin krank gewesen ("I've been sick, and even though I'm not any more [if I were, I would have said Ich bin krank in the present], it's still having ramifications"). Certainly any time you'd use the perfect in English, you use the perfect in German, but you also use the perfect in German sometimes when you'd use the simple past in English. But since you live in Vienna, you needn't worry about it too much. You can always use the perfect when you speak; you only need to passively recognize the preterite when you encounter it in writing. Angr (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Angr. --Viennese Waltz 13:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified:

The preterite (ich ging …) describes an action which is completed.

The perfect (ich bin … gegangen) describes an action which started in the past and is still continuing OR it describes a past (and completed) action when the phrase is used as a preamble to some present consequences.

In colloquial German the perfect is rarely used (this applies to Austro-Bavarian, but not to Northern German usage; as Angr has mentioned). In all informal communications, the perfect is used in place of the preterite, at least in Vienna.

The perfect can also be used as a future tense (but maybe we skip that for the advanced thread :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "In colloquial German the preterite is rarely used", it's the perfect that's rarely used. Angr (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether Cockatoo accidentally mixed up perfect and preterite in his reply, but since the original question was about the verb "sein", it should be mentioned that in colloquial German (at least round where I live - Southern Germany), you practically never use the perfect form of "sein" although you almost exclusively use the perfect forms of all other verbs. Thus:

You always say "Ich bin nach Hamburg gegangen" and almost never "Ich ging nach Hamburg"
But you always say "Ich war in Hamburg" and almost never "Ich bin in Hamburg gewesen" (it's a bit more complicated than that because there are situations where you have to say "Ich bin...gewesen" - the meaning is subtly different. But that's something for the advanced course, too - as a rule of thumb, always say "Ich war [something/somewhere]", and you'll pretty much always be correct).

The distinction between "sein" and all other verbs isn't exactly logical, it's just a quirk of spoken everyday German you have to get used to. -- Ferkelparade π 14:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are situations where you have to say "Ich bin...gewesen" Would you give an example? I can't conceive of one right now. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's identical to the distinction in English between "I was" and "I have been". Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not identical, the English present perfect gives an idication of something being unfinished, while the German perfect doesn't. 180.148.3.228 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find hardly any examples of bin gewesen in actual use after, say, 1900. The only real dialogue that I find starting on p. 144 bottom is influenced by Swiss German where i bin gsii is used regularly (hence the nickname de:wikt:Gsiberger for the Vorarlberg Austrians, the only Austrians speaking an Alemannic variety of German). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be all wrong here, but shouldn't it be 'Ich habe gewesen' in most cases anyway, seeing as sein is not a verb of motion? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Sein always takes sein as its auxiliary. It isn't just verbs of motion that take sein anyway. Werden, einschlafen, aufwachen, sterben, gelingen, and many other verbs taken sein without being verbs of motion. Angr (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Speaking wikipedia check out a table for me...

Hi all, I'm looking for a spannish speaker who might be able to tell me if the table at Down_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms, is relatively accurately source (helpfully the source is on google books preview at [1])? Thanking you in advance… Fayedizard (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositions

Is it okay to end a sentence with a preposition? --108.206.4.199 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when doing so makes the sentence less awkward. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preposition_stranding#Preposition_stranding_in_English has a bit of info (and suggests it's ok) but it's not a great article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill is claimed to have said of the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition, "this is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put". Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his original (alleged) phrasing was arrant pedantry, but close enough :) This is one of those apocryphal type quotes. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (rev. 4th ed., 1996) says it was attributed to Churchill by Ernest Gowers in his "Plain Words" (1948; a precursor of 1954's "The Complete Plain Words"), in the section called "Troubles with Prepositions". The actual words Gowers quoted were: This is the sort of English up with which I wii not put. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Wikiquote points to a 1942 usage, where it appears as "offensive impertinence, up with which I will not put". No attribution to Churchill there though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquary (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 April 2012‎

Indeed. Little did the author know, though, that in correcting his preposition error he had committed another egregious misstep by writing "I will" rather than the obviously correct and exceedingly more cultured "I shall" :) 24.92.85.35 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, "I will" is right, as the author is indicating his intention/desire rather than simple futurity. Angr (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and avoiding prepositions at the end of sentences can make them rather indelicate—see F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom for a good (or bad) example of how bad it can get. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 12:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the article or the book? And where precisely in whichever is appropriate do you want us to look? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]