Language desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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.

November 10

another who/whom

somebody at Halloween is the famous children's book character Penny Wikipedia

you write a note on Facebook about a kid in that costume

"I saw Penny Wikipedia (whom I am told is well-known among children)."

right or wrong?

I wrote to a friend:

[quote]

sometimes it would be "who is well-known" as in "she is well-known" -- subject verb predicate: she, is, well-known = who --- "This is Penny (she is well-known)."

but here the implicit statement is "they describe her as well-known" (because of the phrase "I am told") -- subject verb object: they, describe, her = whom -- "This is Penny (people describe her as well-known)."

[end-quote]

if I'm wrong, which is OK, so are a lot of people! "whom we are told" (in the royal/editorial voice) is common! 76.218.9.50 (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you for 100% certain that "whom" is wrong here. Better-educated persons will be along soon to explain why. For starters, though, you can't have a subject in objective case, because that's a contradiction in terms. The first word in the phrase "whom ... is well-known among children" is the subject of that phrase, so it must be "who". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare "I saw Penny Wikipedia (whom I dated last summer)". There, the pronoun is the direct object of the verb "I dated", so it's correct to use the objective "whom". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22whom+we+are+told+is%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.9.50 (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That URL doesn't work for me, but Jack is quite right. The case of a relative pronoun is determined by its function in the relative clause of which it's part, and in this case the pronoun is the subject of is. (You wouldn't say "I am told her is well-known among children", would you?) That isn't to say that the string of words "whom I am told" is never correct; consider "the people by whom I am told that she is an expert", where whom is the object of the preposition by. Deor (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict--I was chiming in to make the same point as Deor: In the sentence "I am told (that) she is well-known" it is the entire phrase "she is well-known" that is the object of the word "that." The phrase has "she" as the subject and the verb is "is." You would never say "I am told that her is well-known." Ergo, who/she is correct, not whom/her. Qworty (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, similar answer) "I am told" is a parenthetical phrase here, so according to traditional grammar it should not affect the case of "who", which, as Jack says, is the subject of the relative clause. One test you can use is to see if you can add commas without changing the basic meaning: "I saw Penny Wikipedia (who, I am told, is well-known among children)." Compare "I saw Penny Wikipedia (whom people describe as well-known among children)", where commas would not work. Lesgles (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the sentence "I saw Penny, who, I am told, is well-known" and "I am told that Penny is well-known." "I am told" is a parenthetical expression only in the first example. Otherwise you are quite correct. Qworty (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly didn't mean to imply that "I am told" is inherently parenthetical (hence the "here"). Lesgles (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese help

What are the hanzi on the seatbacks at File:Xian China Eastern Airlines Aircraft Cabins n Flight attendant.JPG Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Ren Zhengfei is 任正非 Rèn zhēngFēi or rèn zhèngFēi? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

main text《東方空中文化體驗之旅》 Experience the Journey of China Eastern's Airborne Culture (or something to that effect, it's one of those ineffably Chinese corporate slogans that is impossible to fathom without heavy drinking)

龐貝西服 - Pompei Formalwear

中國職業裝十大領銜品牌 - [one of] The Chinese Top Ten Leading Professional Attire Brands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.241.167 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is American English orthography used?

Philippine English says (not surprisingly since the Philippines is a former US colony):

Philippine English follows American English orthography and grammar,[6] except when it comes to punctuation as well as date notations.

Do any other countries besides the US and the Philippines use American English spelling? Do all other countries in which English plays a prominent role use British spelling entirely, or primarily? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that other former American colonies like the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia also use American spelling. I think Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan tend to use American spelling when teaching English as a foreign language, but of course those aren't "countries in which English plays a prominent role". But there are other options besides American spelling and British spelling: Canada uses Canadian spelling, which sometimes corresponds to American rather than British spelling. (When parallel parking, Canadians are careful not to rub their tires against the curb, not their tyres against the kerb.) Angr (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American English is also the standard in Liberia, a country founded under American influence. American English is also the dominant form throughout Latin America (not including former British colonies in the Caribbean) and in mainland China, though English is not an official language in any of those countries. Marco polo (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is there a functional difference between 'colony' and 'protectorate'? —Tamfang (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More for the humanities desk Tamfang but given my extensive reading of 18th and 20th century history protectorates were more "spheres of influence", where a foreign country had military and administrative as well as economic powers but basically let the day to day religious, cultural, educational and social lives up to the natives. There are dozens of degrees to this but basically that definition would hold to all full bore "colonies" where there were various attempts to either replace wholly or assimilate the culture, religion, society etc. Given the topic the U.S. technically never had the Phillipines as a colony per se since the interest was almost wholly as a military outpost and some economics but one could debate Hawaii and Puerto Rico even Alaska's native Russians and then there is the Native Americans to think of.Marketdiamond (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't speak for Duoduoduo, but I at least was using the term "colony" rather loosely. Technically, I wouldn't call the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or the U.S.-administered Philippines a colony, because Americans didn't colonize the land, i.e. there weren't large numbers of Americans moving there and then setting up their own government dependent on the mother country. I suppose I should have said "former American possessions. Angr (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article colony, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state. In the Modern colonies section it gives the example

Philippines, previously a colony of Spain from 1521[6] to 1898, was a colony of the United States from 1898 to 1946. During World War II between 1942 and 1945, it was occupied by the Japanese forces.

Duoduoduo (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Wiktionary gives both definitions:

1. A settlement of emigrants who move to a new place, but remain culturally tied to their original place

2. Region or governmental unit created by another country and generally ruled by another country

Duoduoduo (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Duoduoduo, I think even academics seem conflicted on the technicalities and depending on the culture and politics of the occupying nation different terms are used but to compare a Hawaii or Virginia or Puerto Rico to the Phillipines by using colony ignores a lot of the true history, not saying that groups or even governments never referred to it as such just saying that uninformed persons are sometimes in government or run groups.Marketdiamond (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the reticence of America in calling the territories it acquired in the late 19th century as "colonies" was because of the controversy surrounding the fact that it was basically a period of aggressive imperialism in American history. There were numerous prominent Americans who objected to the acquisitions, most notably Mark Twain, so "colony" wouldn't really do in that it only highlights the fact that the US was emulating what the British did to them all those years ago. Ironic in a way, a former colony acquiring colonies. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Aggressive Imperialism"? That's kind of silly. The US could easily have annexed Cuba and the Phillipines had it wanted. There was very strong opposition to this at home, and both those low hanging fruit were left to fall where they may. Now, regarding our annexation of the Mexican states of Sonora and Baja California, the countries of Liberia and Panama, and of the Yukon, British Columbia, and the Maritime Provinces, you may have a point. Or not. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny." - William McKinley -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Low hanging fruit". I'm absolutely thrilled by yet another exemplary demonstration of your latent xenophobia.

See Treaty of Paris (1898). The Philippine forces during that time helped Americans under the impression that it was truly altruism on the Americans' part. Only to be stabbed in the back when the US abruptly declared that independence was not forthcoming after all and that they'll be taking over Spain's role instead. It started the Philippine-American War, which was downplayed as an "insurrection", a term that is pretty unambiguous when it comes to declaring possession, don't you think? If there was no intent of holding on to them, do you really think the US would bother? The US paid $20 million for them, and it still retains Guam and Puerto Rico (not to mention Guantanamo Bay), the other half of the Spanish possessions it acquired during the same treaty. And a short while after that, it then acquired Hawaii, under less than noble circumstances; as well as various other territories in the Pacific - some bought from other European powers like the Virgin Islands, and some squabbled over like the American Samoa. But of course, these may all be just serendipitous windfall rather than something consciously striven for. After all, the US could have easily annexed anything they want if they truly wanted to. Oh wait... that's exactly what they did! lulz.

You seem to be under the impression that it's my nationalism talking here, like yours, but no. The characterization of US behavior as imperialistic during that time period came from contemporaries and by self-admission. The American Pro-Imperialism faction was led by McKinley and it was wildly popular. Though it had vocal opponents, they were far from "strong" and were pretty much ignored. While the Philippines, Guam, etc. were really just secondary spoils in a war that started out over Cuba, the public opinion favored annexation of all the involved territories. Same thing with Hawaii. See William McKinley#Peace and territorial gain. The period in American history itself heralded the US as a major world superpower. The intention may not truly be colonization in the sense of settlement, but they did accomplish the goal of establishing naval bases throughout the Pacific. Whether or not they retained possession of the countries themselves was largely irrelevant, they were free as long as the bases remain. That, however, still falls under imperialism. See Manifest Destiny and Alfred Thayer Mahan.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a functional difference between "colony" and "protectorate"? Depends on what is meant be functional, or really the particular place and time being discussed. "Protectorate" probably comes from (modern) international law, whereas "colony" has a more ancient origin. So the words may serve different functions, yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In British use, A Protectorate was where the indigenous government was preserved, but under the "protection" of the colonial power; some might call it a Puppet government, but there were varying degrees of autonomy. In a Colony, any local government was removed (if any) and an administration was operated directly by the colonial power. By this definition, the Phillipines was a protectorate and Hawaii a colony (some might say it still is). Alansplodge (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Hawaii has as much autonomy as any of the other states, no more and no less. You can hardly call an integral part of a sovereign nation a colony. Is Scotland a colony of the United Kingdom? Is Brittany a colony of France? Is Bavaria a colony of Germany? Affirmative answers would require either a whole new definition of colony or a metaphorical use of the word. Pais (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Languages of Israel says (but without citing a source) that "written English in Israel today uses primarily American spelling and grammar", which matches what I heard from a British friend who lived in Israel for 10 years. Pais (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, I can tell you that you can easily encounter things written in Australia by Australians but think you're reading something written by an American. This is due mainly to a combination of (a) spellcheckers that force American spellings on the unwary, and (b) people who get most of their knowledge of the English language from imported TV shows. Not to mention (c) our fantastic education system, which I won't get started on here. So, we see stuff like defense, theater, gotten (as the past continuous tense of get), alternate (for alternative), and so on. Very common. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotten is the past participle, the simple past is got and I don't even know what you mean by the past continuous unless it were to say "was getting". μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Gotten' is the past participle in your dialect, not mine. (Yes, I did mean the past participle. More eclipse effects.) There are words like 'ill-gotten', but 'gotten' by itself is not recognised as a word at all in Australia. You might say "They had gotten a long way down the road by then". Our version of that is "They had got ...". But, as I say, it's changing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to "another who/whom" above: hyphen in well-known

The responses to the question above have piqued my curiosity. Well-known in the quote provided by the OP is predicative, not attributive, irrespective of the who/whom discussion. My understanding is that it therefore shouldn't be hyphenated (cf: The author is well known vs She's a well-known author) and that's how I have always treated it. But everyone else above has hyphenated it in the predicate position in their responses, just as the OP did. Googling confirms the general hyphen rule for attributives, but some sources suggest that well-known has reached, or is reaching, the stage of compounds like ill-favoured, which are hyphenated in both positions. So, did people not address the point simply because it wasn't the focus of the OP's question, or because for them well-known is indeed a compound that now retains the hyphen in both positions? And if so, does this vary depending on the variety of English? - Ka renjc 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was working as an editor for a publishing company, we needed a definite rule on this to ensure consistency, since different editors might be working on different chapters of a book. The rule was to observe the attributive (hyphen) / predicative (no hyphen) rule you refer to unless the hyphenated form had its own entry in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, in which case the compound would be hyphenated in all uses. Well-known is one of those with an entry in the dictionary, so I still reflexively hyphenate it. Deor (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my response I was tempted to de-hyphenate it, because that is indeed my preference, but in the end I decided not to mess with the OP's sentence. Lesgles (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we should reflexively hyphenate well-known even in such cases as "Wnt's proclivity to answer every prohibited medical question is well-known" because there's a dictionary entry for well-known? That sounds like nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm well-known as a purveyor of nonsense. Deor (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was more that you were suffering its pernicious after-effects than purveying it, :) μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deor's answer referring back to Merriam-Webster tends to support my suspicion that it's another UK/US English thing. I too have worked as an editor and our in-house style had a similar rule but based on the SOED and Hart's Rules, which sent us the opposite way from Deor's in this case. I may soon be working for the first time with students who learned their English from US English speakers, which is why I sought clarification. Thanks for the answers. - Ka renjc 18:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American English in general is less fond of hyphens than British English is. (I was about to write "...is less hyphen-friendly than British English" but then I wasn't sure whether to hyphenate hyphen-friendly since I would have been using it predicatively.) However, I suspect the vast majority of Americans don't know or care what Merriam-Webster or the Chicago Manual of Style says about hyphen use, and just follow their gut instincts on when to put hyphens in and when to leave them out. Angr (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd simply refer to compound word. If only well bears a standard stress, it's a compound and the two words should be hyphenated or written as one word with no space in-between. If each word bears a standard stress of its own they are separate words and should not be hyphenated. "He's a well-known sheep-fucker" has only a stress on the first word. "That he likes to fuck sheep is well known" has two separate main stresses and should remain unhyphenated. What this has to do with Oxford vs Webster I know not. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I disagree with your assessment of the placement of "standard stress" in your two examples. In "He's a well-known sheep-fucker", "well" and "known" have equal stress. In "That he likes to fuck sheep is well known", "known" has a greater stress, but that's only because it is the last stressed syllable of the sentence and in English intonation of declarative sentences, that syllable gets extra stress in the form of high-then-dropping pitch plus greater loudness to go with the high part of the pitch. If we remove the end-of-sentence feature, as in "That he likes to fuck sheep is well known but not universally known", the stress pattern of "well known" is identical to that in "well-known sheep-fucker". Duoduoduo (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, simply, no. In normal speech, only the first syllables in "He's a 'well-known 'sheep-fucker" will get primary stress, as happens with compounds. You can certainly say, "He's a 'well 'known 'sheep 'fucker", but it carries a very emphatic tone not used in normal speech without the intent of making some strong contrast. Likewise, "That he's a sheep-fucker is 'well 'known" has to carry a full primary stress on both well and known, indicating it is not compounded and therefore should not be hyphenated in that position. Dropping the stress on known in that circumstance would not be found in American English. In Britain it would sound like a parody of the Chav habbit of prefixing well- to an adjective to mean "very"--but it wouldn't be standard speech. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again it appears that the American English you're used to and that which I'm used to are different (though we agree on "is 'well 'known"). I can't imagine that I've ever heard the attributive "well-known" with "known" stressed less than "well". Using numbers to represent both the height of pitch and the forcefulness, the intonation I'm familiar with is "well(3) known(3) sheep(3) fuck(2)er(2)". Your way would be "well(3) known(2) sheep(3) fuck(2)er(2)", which sounds unfamiliar to me. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And various dictionaries that I've checked put equal stress on both halves of "well-known" without giving as an option a stress on the "well" syllable only. One is my hard copy of Random House Webster's College Dictionary; others are linked from [1] . So the idea that "well-known" before the noun is hyphenated because it is a compound word as evidenced by its pronunciation being front-stressed is wrong -- it may well be appropriate to hyphenate it, and it may well be a compound word, but the latter is not evidenced by a solely front-stressed pronunciation. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the "thirteen men" rule by some linguists[2] -- e.g. when the word "thirteen" is pronounced on its own, or at the end of a sentence, stress is on the second syllable; however, when it's pronounced in close connection with a following noun (especially a noun with stress on its first syllable), then "thirteen" is stressed on its first syllable, as in "thirteen men". It doesn't always apply, and it might apply slightly differently in the speech of different people, but it's definitely a part of the English language. There's a little about it in article Metrical phonology (though for some reason this uses the phrase "nineteen girls", rather than the quasi-standard example "thirteen men")... AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soy sauce in supermarket.JPG

What is the Japanese text in the picture in File:Soy sauce in supermarket.JPG? I would like to see the Japanese text in the image posted and also to have it translated so it can be used in an image annotation Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of Japanese text in that pic. I'm guessing you mean the white-on-red? —Tamfang (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The white on red would be the primary one, yes. If anyone wants to he/she can do the smaller ones too, but the main one is the white on red - That way the text can be translated into other languages so international viewers can "read" the text in the picture WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting out my dictionaries (and my Japanese is very rusty to start with) but the sign that appears a couple of times appears to mean "cheaper here that at competing stores" :-( --Shirt58 (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The translation by Shirt58 is correct. The top shelf from left right:本醸造/honjōzō/genuine fermented is a synonym of koikuchi. See Soy sauce#Japanese. イチビキ/Ichibiki is the company name. 無添加/mutenka is additive-free. The second shelf:おさしみ/osashimi is soy sauce for sashimi. カネスエ on the price tag is the name of the supermarket, Kanesue. The third shelf:うすくち/usukuchi on the label is lighter taste. こいくち/koikuchi is thicker taste. キッコーマン is Kikkoman. 減塩醤油/gen'en shōyu (jōyu) is low salt soy sauce. 黒豆醤油/kuromame shōyu (jōyu) is black bean soy sauce. 丸大豆/marudaizu is whole-bean soy sauce. What else do you want to know? Oda Mari (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that > than (at competing stores). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Jack, Mock Morris is a tiny stub at the moment and needs your help. "Take heed, sirrah - the whip." King Lear, Act I, scene iv.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, how'd you know I enjoy ... that sort of thing? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"TMI, TMI!"

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! I added annotations to File:Soy sauce in supermarket.JPG Mari, what is the Japanese text that means "cheaper here that at competing stores"? What are the full sentences that include "Kanesue"? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

競合店よりお値打ちに販売しております。 is Kyōgōten yori oneuchi-ni hanbai-shite orimasu. My translations is "(We are offering) lower prices than those of competing stores'". I'm not sure it's a good en sentence though. 競合店 is "competing stores" and 販売しております is actually "we are selling". お値打ち is a bit difficult. The word is usually translated as "valuable" or "worthy", but in this sentence, it means "consumer friendly (price)" or "welcoming price". Please rewrite it. As for the sentences on the tag, the sentence on the top is an explanation of the low salt soy sauce, but it's not clear enough to read it all and the phrase under the circle is カネスエクォリティ/Kanesue quality. Oda Mari (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The translation I used was "We offer lower prices than [those of] our competitors " because I think a store would use "We offer lower prices than our competitors " but that wouldn't be strictly grammatically correct WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]