Language desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 8

does my spelling show my aging?

I never saw the forms ageing and eyeing in (professional) print before about twenty years ago. (Recently I saw another surprising –eing word but don't remember what it was.)

In my day, final silent e was dropped before ing except in dyeing (to distinguish dye from die) and singeing (to distinguish singe from sing). I also feel obliged to mention seeing, fleeing, agreeing because some clown will if I don't.

Are They teaching a different standard now? If so, what the heck is the new rule? Why ageing and not *pageing or indeed *takeing? —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why not encourageing? Is it garaging or garageing? Dressaging or dressageing? Foraging or forageing? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's regional, not generational. "Ageing" seems to be the more common spelling outside of the US and Canada. It is specifically addressed in our spelling guidelines here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The "new rule" will depend on which style guide a particular publisher is using. Style guides do change over the years. Also there are significant American and British English spelling differences, and US publishers prefer "aging" so maybe you're looking at books published in the UK where the preferred spelling is "ageing".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dickens in The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain has "She's fat, she 's ageing, she won't bear comparison with most other women.” (p.154) which was written in 1848. On the website of the English Spelling Society, the change from "ageing" to "aging" in the US is blamed on the The Chicago Tribune in an article called Spelling the Chicago Tribune Way, 1934-1975, Part I., which says; "Now various errant simplifications began to creep into Tribune usage without sufficient monitoring. By 1950, aging, cantaloup, cigaret, enrolment, eying, glycerin, hiccup, pean, numskull and sodder (for solder) were in use, as well as a host of -UE simplifications that had not appeard on previous lists although they stemmed analogously from announced changes." So yes, it does show that you learned to spell after 1950 and on the left hand side of the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that keeping the "e" in the present participle of verbs whose stems end in "-ye" not only persists in British English, but may also remain productive in certain, American neologisms.

e.g. "to lye" (to put lye in one's hair) "to rye" (to mix rye into flour) or "to bye" (to advance in a tournament without needing play a match).

"I'm lyeing my hair to make it straighter."
"Mom is ryeing the dough because that makes it crunchier."
"We're byeing Notre Dame into the 2nd round, so that some of the weaker teams get eliminated first."

Pine (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A minor observation: As the OP mentions, even on the left side of the pond, singe becomes singeing to avoid singing, which comes from sing. Also, binge becomes bingeing even though there's no verb to bing (though Wiktionary also gives binging). Wiktionary gives hinging or hingeing, the latter of which looks better to my American eye. But Wiktionary gives tinge as giving only tinging and fringe as only giving fringing (implicitly for both UK and US). Duoduoduo (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very odd because if I saw the word "tinging" on its own, I would rhyme it with dinging and ringing (there is a verb "to ting"), but the OED seems to agree with Wiktionary on omitting the "e", mentioning only that Webster's of 1864 and a couple of other dictionaries allow the form with the "e". This is one aspect of (British) English spelling that I struggle with because I was taught at an early age an erroneous rule about keeping the "e" to soften the "g" (or perhaps I over-generalised the rule). Am I just whing(e)ing? Dbfirs 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Dbfirs, some would argue that other ways to soften the "g" exist, for instance, putting a "d" in front of it.

e.g. judgement vs. judgment, or abridgement vs. abridgment.

The old rule for the Latinate languages (English, Greek, and the various Romance languages) stated that "c" and "g" remain soft before "e," "i," and "y," but hard before all other letters. In the case of "c," the rule persists, but, in the case of "g," it has become practically awash with exceptions (in English at least).

Perhaps, this constitutes (yet another) argument for English spelling reform. Then again, as Jack of Oz would say, "No big deal, at the end of the day inconsistencies are just inconsistancies." Pine (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, bruder. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"branched out into"

this reads oddly to me. Is it? So does "outside of". Kittybrewster ☎ 16:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Branched out into" sounds fine to me, as in "The roots of the transplanted flower branched out into the new pot". So, the roots are going out of the plant and into the pot.

"Outside of" sounds OK, too, although the "of" could be omitted for brevity: "Is the spot inside of or outside of the window ?" could just as well be "Is the spot inside or outside the window ?". StuRat (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in "the spot is on the outside of the window", the "of" cannot be omitted. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The spot is outside the window" works, although it doesn't technically say it is on the window, but this should be understood in context. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Branched out into" isn't discordant to my tender sensibilities, nor to those of several dictionaries.[1][2]. When you expand out of one region, you go into another. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the similarly constructed "While having his breakfast in the nursery, little Bobby suddenly ran out into the garden." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your two examples are entirely different, Kittybrewster. "branch out" is a phrasal verb, followed by the preposition into, and I don't find odd in any way. "Outside of" is a variant of "outside", and is used in several varieties of English, though sometimes frowned on. --ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little technical assistance for an author ?

When writing a novel, what's considered the correct way, or how does an author usually handle the use of two (or more) languages briefly being spoken in the same book?

Forexample: The book is written in english and the main character also speaks english, but then he/she meets another character from Norway, and the two initiate a dialogue. The main character who is english happens to speak and understand Norwegian, so they speak to each other in Norwegian. But obviously the reader will likely not understand Norwegian, so each time something is written in Norwegian the author must follow up by repeating the same words/sentences in English so that the reader can understand it.

So do I write something like this:

'God dag,' (Well met) he said, before shaking her hand.

or

'God dag,' Well met, he said, before shaking her hand.

or

'God dag,' he said, before shaking her hand. Well met.

Obviously the last alternative there seem very awkward to me, but I'm not sure how to handle this. Any feedback will be appreciated. It would be nice however if you made clear whether you're simply expressing you personal opinion or if you're actually quite certain that your method is a correct one.

109.247.62.59 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello", said Bob, switching to Norwegian. "Have we met before?" I.e. tell the reader what happens, don't show it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually agree with you, but sometimes reason can be found for doing it the way I was originally thinking. But I'm still thankful for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add "The following conversation takes place in Norwegian, but is presented in English for the convenience of the reader:". This will give it a bit of a documentary feel, but that might make it seem more real. The only time I would present foreign language writing is if it can't be reproduced in the native language, such as poetry that won't rhyme or words with no translation. In those cases you should include the original, along with whatever translation you can manage. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, it's not a documentary ;) Anyway, the things being said is best said in its real language, and sometimes an author just have to decide how to go about it, and I kind of have. I'm just not sure exactly how best to repeat/translate the things being said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urk. If it were me, I would simply use, ""God dag", he said, and shook her hand". Most English readers will get the gist. If you don't think they will, don't use the Swedish. And if I felt I must translate, I would use "Good day" rather than "Well met". Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the formats you listed, I like the first the best, although the translation of "God dag" is "Good day", not "Well met" (which sounds like something out of Shakespeare to me in the US: "Hail, and well met !"). StuRat (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you got the swedish from, Looie. "god dag" is rightly enough swedish, but also Norwegian. They're very similar languages. Almost the same. But guys, the "god dag" was in fact just an example since some of you didn't understand that :D The things being said is not as simple as two words, and for the sake of power and meaning behind what's being said, it needs to be spoken in its true language. But i thank you all for replies. 109.247.62.59 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have a copy of Jo Nesbø's The Redeemer to hand, translated to English by Don Bartlett. The translation is excellent, so I trust this as a good example of best practice.

The characters are, and speak, Norwegian. Dialogue is all written in English. Place names and personal names are left in Norwegian, except when translation offers some extra information. So a drug rehabilitation centre's name is translated as Lighthouse - the name is used in a pun later in the book. Some characters are multilingual, and whole sentences in other languages are translated into English - "'Yes, he's in,' she said in mellifluous French." "'How are you?' the woman said in her clipped English" For the rest of the conversation no mention is made of the language - it's implied that it continues in the foreign tongue.

If translation is required inline, it's dealt with like this: "It was only when he saw 'Vestbredden' - West Bank - scrawled on the wall of a squat that he realised he had walked too far."

Based on these examples, I would recommend rendering your sentence as "'Good day', he said in Norwegian, before shaking her hand." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has stated that it's important he use the actual Norwegian words and then provide an English translation. We're here to help him do that, not advise him to do something different.

OP, this is a very unusual style and one that wouldn't be referencable, but if it were me, I think I'd do the following:

"God dag" [Good day], he said, before shaking her hand. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several passages in novels by Cormac McCarthy in which characters speak untranslated Spanish. McCarthy makes no attempt to explain what is being said to the reader, it's just part of the experience of reading the novel. I would do the same thing - put it in Norwegian, and don't provide a translation. If the reader cares enough to find out what is being said, they will type the passage into Google Translate. It will likely be only an approximate translation, of course, but that's OK. It's good to make things difficult for the reader, make them do some work, make the book a little bit more mysterious and less transparent. If you don't like the sound of that, I would just put the Norwegian in the main text and put a translation in a footnote at the bottom of the page. --Viennese Waltz 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be a really good authot to get away with "if my readers care enough they can use google translate". Most authors need to work hard to keep their readers interested. Lova Falk talk 10:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "well met" thing, it translates to "Vel møtt", which in contemporary Norwegian usually is used as a collective welcome greeting, for example by the host of a conference, when first addressing the attendees. Often followed by "til" (to) and then whatever the meeting is about. The majority of the first pages of Google hits I got now, was school web pages, welcoming their students to the the new school year, e.g. "Vel møtt til et nytt og spennende skoleår!" -NorwegianBlue^talk 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a copy of Barbara Kingsolver's The Lacuna, check the first chapter to see how she solves this problem. There's a lot of spoken spanish, but she translates this into english in a very natural way. However, as far as I recall, there were no long ongoing conversations. Lova Falk talk 10:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, "God dag" sounds a lot like a common epithet in Southern American English, so if left untranslated it could be confusing to some readers. "Dag" is a milder form of "Damn" (seen in "God dag it" and "Dag nabbit" and "Dag gummit" and other similar pseudo-swears). It may not be pronounced as though it were the same as someone from the South would say it, but a reader wouldn't necessarily know that. If the author wants to avoid directly translating a phrase in an awkward way (which may be necessary given the high potential for confusion here) then perhaps some alternate Norwegian greeting may be in order... --Jayron32 11:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the Interior of the Earth has some Danish and Icelandic in it, so I looked to see how Jules Verne conveys the translations. Turns out he gets one character to translate for the benefit of the other, which conveniently also provides a translation for the reader:

"Färja," said the guide, touching his shoulder.

"What! a boat?"

"Der," replied Hans, pointing to one.

"Yes," I cried; "there is a boat."

"Why did not you say so then? Well, let us go on."

"Tidvatten," said the guide.

"What is he saying?"

"He says tide," said my uncle, translating the Danish word.

"No doubt we must wait for the tide."

"Förbida," said my uncle.

"Ja," replied Hans.

My uncle stamped with his foot, while the horses went on to the boat.

I perfectly understood the necessity of abiding a particular moment of the tide to undertake the crossing of the fiord, when, the sea having reached its greatest height, it should be slack water.

The last of those translations is achieved through the medium of first-person narration. Other devices used in the same book include saying "The conversation was carried on in the vernacular tongue," and then writing the actual conversation in English; a simple "which means" (... greeted us with the word "Sællvertu," which means "be happy"); and I also found an instance of the phrase "god dag", which was left untranslated, probably because the chances of the reader guessing (or knowing) it means "good day" are high. People often know the words of greeting in foreign languages, even if they don't know how to say anything else. Card Zero (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Bronte, in her novel Villette, has characters speaking French frequently. She writes it in French, then in English. I can't remember if she italicizes the French or not. For very short sentences in French, she doesn't translate to English. In the OP's example, one could write

God dag, "Nice to meet you", he said, before shaking her hand.

or

God dag, he said, before shaking her hand. "Nice to meet you."

I would definitely use a natural translation like "Nice to meet you" rather than a word-for-word literal translation like "Well met". In subsequent uses of God dag, I would not translate it again. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, "Well met" isn't the literal translation. "Good day" is. There's a bit of a clue in the first two letters of each word? I don't see how "nice to meet you" is any more natural than "well met" or "good day". They are all quite meaningless bits of cant, along with "how are you", but if there is any nuanced sense to the phrase, it's the word-for-word translation, which happens also to be a natural phrase - "good day" - which will convey the correct nuances. (I'm assuming the OP picked "well met" because, as an archaic greeting, it suited the tone of the story. Maybe you didn't recognise it as such.) Card Zero (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need vowels for Hebrew word

Hello -

I'm very new to Hebrew, in a lot of ways, and I need a question answered as quickly as possible here. Could someone give me the word כי with the vowels? As in: תן לי כי (give me that)?

Thank you. --Brasswatchman (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always look up the dots in wiktionary: [3] [4] [5].... but I'm not sure that sentence makes sense. What you write means give me because ... try "ten li et ze"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brasswatchman -- כי is generally a conjunction in Hebrew, not a demonstrative. AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]