Language desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

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.

January 22

Typos in Chinese and Japanese

Some language input methods, such as Chinese and Japanese, involve a conversion process where the inputted phonemes are replaced with the correct graphemes. Since computer users typing in these languages undergo an extra "step" during the input, one might suspect they're less prone to typos. Is this actually the case? I'm only looking for peer-reviewed studies here; no anecdotes please. Dncsky (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dispute the factual basis on which you form your hypothesis, which would suggest to me that you may find it difficult to find peer-reviewed studies supporting it. However my contribution would probably be classed as anecdote, so I will say no more. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which of my assertions is wrong? I am by no means familiar with any of this so I'm more than happy to hear criticisms.Dncsky (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, words are typed essentially phonetically as kana (or kana via romaji) and then converted to kanji as necessary. However, quite a few common words and grammatical elements are left in kana (unconverted), and it easy enough to make typos in those. When converting to kanji it is possible to accidentally choose the wrong character (typically there are many choices) and not notice. 81.159.108.13 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Japanese the only relevant part in the comparison would then be the kanji parts. Dncsky (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the majority of users input Chinese using a phonetic method, either character-by-character, or in phrases of several characters at once. While there is a limited set of permissible syllables (thus reducing the chance of mis-typed letters making it to the final output compared to say English input), there are usually many characters to choose from, so it is just as easy, if not more, to select the wrong character accidentally at that stage. This is especially because when typing a common character, one might expect it to be the first choice presented by the computer, and when typing quickly simply choose the first choice presented by default instead of paying attention to the whole range of selections.

This is even more so when inputting a phrase rather than a character. One expects fewer choices to be presented when one inputs the pinyin for a phrase than a single character, but usually there are multiple phrases with the same letter combination input, and it is quite common to automatically select the first but incorrect choice presented.

Therefore, just because part of the "typing" work is shifted from the keyboard to the screen, it does not mean the sources of error is necessarily reduced.

There are two additional sources of errors. One is that most people are slightly hazy about the use of some similar characters, especially somewhat archaic characters which are less commonly used in everyday speech but preserved in common idioms. So if a similar but incorrect character is presented first, one might well simply choose that instead of scrolling on to find the correct character. It is very common to see a similar but incorrect character used in such contexts, even in mainstream publications. The other is due to dialectical differences: most people use phonetic input methods based on standard Mandarin, but few people speak standard Mandarin as a native tongue. For many people from the southern half of China, for example, there is no distinction between -in and -ing whereas this is present in Mandarin. It would be easy to type "-in" instead of "-ing" and then, when typing quickly, to automatically but incorrectly select the first choice presented. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing an ambiguous spelling

What is the proper way to suggest the alternative spelling of Ichibana for Ikebana

On the article's talk page. Or you could make a new page with your spelling and make it a redirect to Ikebana, if your spelling is a common alternative spelling. --Viennese Waltz 10:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird adage

There's this common saying that's frequently passed on to each other. Today I received it on my email. The moment I read it, I knew something was peculiar. So I asked around; some said its wrong while others sad it was fine. And now I'm here. The saying reads:

If it looks too good to be true, it most likely isn't

Now, shouldn't it be is? Or is it just ambiguous. Thanks Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say both are possible, depending on where the stress is in the preceding clause; in this case, it means it isn't true, and if you said is, it would mean that it is too good (to be true). And I think whichever you choose, it is ambiguous, at least when written down. - Lindert (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion/experience, "is" is so much more common in this expression that "isn't" looks wrong even if it can be logically justified. 86.176.212.69 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is that you have 2 things that is / isn't can apply to: "too good", and "true". Any similar construction will be ambiguous. --Lgriot (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ambiguity: "If IT looks too good to be true, [then] IT most likely is not [true]." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's ambiguity all right. The final word could refer back to "too good to be true", or it could refer back to "true". If something IS "too good to be true", then it is almost certainly NOT "true", hence the conflict, hence the ambiguity. It's not a problem of comprehension, though. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letters as designations?

What is it called in English when letters of the alphabet are uesd in the same way as numbers are used as nominal numbers? In Swedish, it is called sv:littera. 891 mm (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Swedish is good enough to see that that article suffers from the 'refers to' problem. As to the question, I don't think there's a name for it in English, but someone else may know better. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not so much distinction made in English over numbers which also contain letters: You can say "I live at number 221b Baker Street" (or just "I live at 221b Baker Street"), and you can say "This is locomotive number HS451G". So, generally, littera and litteranummer will correspond to the English word number. In the context of railway vehicles, jargon such as 'type', 'class', or such like may be more appropriate depending on the context. There is, as far as I'm aware, no single term for the use of letters in this way. Your 'letters as designations' works fine, but there may be a better way of wording it if you tell us the context. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The context would be the same as numbers are used when they are nominal numbers, i.e. the letter as such has no meaning, it just serves the purpose of distinguishing one thing from another of the same kind, without A being better or worse than B or A necessarily before or after B. 891 mm (talk),

Nominal number has been tagged ever since March 2008 (!!) as needing references ... any references. It seems completely OR to me. I really question the existence of this term except in the mind of the author of the article, which by rights should have been deleted years ago. I think it's one thing to say that letters, numbers or other symbols can be used nominally, but quite a stretch to say that the numbers are thereby "nominal numbers". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely OR, the term appears in various web pages unrelated to Wikipedia. According to the questioner in this thread at Ask Dr. Math, it is used in some elementary maths textbooks. One of the respondents suspects that "some text writer fairly recently felt a need to respond to questions like yours [the questioner's] from students, wondering whether, say, a phone number or a uniform number is cardinal or ordinal, and for that reason made up a new category, "nominal," where the number is purely arbitrary and has no implications of number or sequence." --NorwegianBlue^talk 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when you have to create a new computer password, the instruction is that it must be, say, 6-12 characters long including letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "nominal number" artical says the specific number itself is irrelevant, for various reasons - such as with a phone number. But it's not irrelevant to the phone company, as it's a "unique key" or identifier. It's a sequence number. But to the consumer, it's merely an object, or a "nominal number" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think only Cucumber Mike has answered the original question, and I don't think correctly. Consider the following between two teachers/students: My classroom is on the ground floor "Oh yes, what number?" 23. But at my school, the upper floors had rooms 1 to 46 and the ground floor had rooms A to N. So "what number?" would become "what letter?" which sounds odd in normal language. But nevertheless there is no other word than "letter" in English, to describe one of those 26 symbols used in place of a number. Sussexonian (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What can you say about the readability of the short paragraph?

I really need your honest views so that I can alter it in case the writing is bad. This is part of my paper:

The source of rationality of man can be viewed using two perspectives, the view stating that it is intentionally created and the view arguing that it is a product of natural arrangement, either way the presence of rationality is different from the use of rationality. While we can thank the provider for our reason, it is not the case that we attribute its usage to that same source. Supposing that rationality is product of a cause intended by none, we may be able to prove it, but it would be absurd to assert that our use of that rationality, say for example, to prevent an outbreak of war is attributed to that same source. The existence of reason may be caused by that entity, but the birth of the rational choice is attributed to and existence of that reason per se, so that we can say that we have prevented the possibility of an armed conflict because of our reason and our use to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.87.185 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was pretty badly written. Some points to consider:

Avoid using 'man' when you mean 'people generally'. In this case, Try 'human reason' or 'human rationality' instead of 'rationality of man'.
Break up long sentences like the first one. Try "...two perspectives. The first is that..." and so on.
If possible, say why you think there are exactly these two views, and identify, preferably with sources, people or groups who have held these views.
You appear to be assuming that human reason has 'a provider'. This view will itself need to be justified.
Avoid round-about ways of referring to things, such as 'that same source', 'that entity'. Say directly what you mean.
Avoid Latin terms like 'per se', which in this case appears not to mean anything.
Generally, try to imagine someone else reading your work. Are you trying to impress them with how scholarly you sound, convince them of some idea that you believe, or provoke them to think about the same things you have thought about?

AlexTiefling (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of months ago we had an editor asking for comments on the quality of writing, for what turned out to be shaky translations of philosophical works written in German. I'm betting that this is the same thing. It has a sort of Kantian feel. Looie496 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick red-pen lookover:

There should be colon between "perspectives" and "the", not a comma.

Put a full stop after "arrangement" and before "either way".

Insert a comma after "either way".

Just skimming through, with no context, I have no idea what "the presence of rationality is different from the use of rationality" is supposed to mean. I'm certain there's a better way to phrase what you're trying to get across.

There should probably be a "necessarily" somewhere in the sentence about thanking the provider, for clarity's sake.

What is a "cause intended by none"?

"rationality is the/a product" is slightly better than "rationality is product", but this whole sentence probably needs to be revised.

"we may be able to prove" what exactly? That rationality "is a product...", that the cause is "intended by none"?

Put a full stop after "prove it" and begin the next sentence with "However," in place of "but".

Replace the comma after "use of that rationality" with an emdash; get rid of the word "say" in "say for example".

Put a closing emdash after "outbreak of war".

"that entity" -- you haven't mentioned an entity, or even a being, force, or intelligence yet. This noun needs context in order to make sense. I get that you're referring to the "source", whatever that is, but the fact that you haven't yet framed it in personal terms makes this statement potentially confusing to the reader.

"attributed to and existence of" doesn't mean anything.

Exterminate "per se" and end the sentence at "of that reason". The next sentence should begin with a "Therefore," in place of "so that".

"use to it" should be "use of it". If you wanted to be excessively wordy and slightly pedantic, you could also write "use of the same".

Plus, everything Alex said. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]