Language desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 22

Would this be considered plagiarism?

Would this be considered plagiarism if the content (subject) of your work is completely different from another person's work but you retain the same syntax?

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

It is a curse privately thought, that a young girl in liability of having heavy weight is in need of weight-training programs.

65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source text is famous enough that for those who are familiar with the source, the adaptation would be seen as parody or satire rather than plagiarism. You're not re-wording the original text and claiming it as your own; you're presenting an idea using a form that has already been established. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The essence of plagiarism is that the form of expression of a work is derived from the form of expression of another work, but there are a variety of "fair use" conditions, and one of them is length. This is too short to be plagiarism. If you did the same thing with the entire text of Pride and Prejudice -- or even a few paragraphs -- it would be different. Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing plagiarism with (US) copyright infringement. Fair use has no relevance to plagiarism. A full-length parody of Pride and Prejudice would not be plagiarism, although if anything like the OP's example it would be a crime against literature. Henry ^Flower 12:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the difference: copyright infringement is the copying of the exact text of someone else's work without crediting them. Plagiarism is the copying of someone else's ideas without crediting them. See idea-expression divide for more. --Jayron32 20:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement doesn't imply failure to credit the copyright holder. If you copy someone else's work without their permission it's a copyright infringement even if you identify the author. For example, if I upload a PDF of Stephen King's latest novel to the Internet, I've violated his copyright even if I clearly identify him as the author. Angr (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if the work is not formally copyrighted? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For most countries, work is copyrighted once written - there is no need to "formally" copyright it. In the US, I think that there used to be a distinction, but am pretty sure this is no longer the case - see Copyright law of the United States for the full detais. Bluap (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Male counterpart of "grande dame"

Women of a certain distinction and reputation are sometimes referred to as the "grande dame" of whatever institution or field of activity they're associated with.

What would a man of a similar distinction be called? There is the expression "grand seigneur", but it seems to be much less used than "grande dame". If that's the right answer, why is it less used? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doyen is the word I'd reach for first, but it's probably not an exact equivalent. Tevildo (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the term "Grand Old Man of..." a few times. Matt Deres (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "Grandfather" used in this situation. James Brown seems to have been referred to as either the "Godfather of Soul" or the "Grandfather of Soul". --TammyMoet (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list might yield more info if you clicked through some of the names. Matt Deres (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Elder statesman" could sometimes be used. "Old salty dogs" is a term I've heard used for people with both expertise and long experience, but this lacks the gravitas of "grand dame".--Wikimedes (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

meanings related to "recruitment"

If a person that has been recruited into some organization is called a "recruit", what then is the person called that recruited him?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiter? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Crak'd Jordan"

This [1] is a positively obscene cartoon, by James Gilray, depicting the relationship between the Duke of Clarence (later William IV) and Dorothea Jordan. Wouldn't get away with it nowadays. However, my question is - why is Mrs Jordan depicted as a chamber pot? I assume there's some contemporary reference I'm not familiar with - what is it? Tevildo (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, the word jordan was a Standard English term for a chamber pot until the mid-19th century, when it became exclusively dialectal and "low colloquial". Deor (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference! So, Gilray took advantage of a somewhat unwise choice of professional name on Ms Bland's part, but didn't mean anything more than that. Tevildo (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This thread quotes Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable - "Jordan: A name anciently given to the pot used by alchemists and doctors, then transferred to a chamber-pot. It was perhaps originally Jordan-bottle, i.e. a bottle in which pilgrims and crusaders brought back water from the River Jordan."

"Why, they will allow us ne'er a jordan,

and then we leak in your chimney;

and your chamber-lie breeds fleas like a loach.,..Shakespeare: Henry IV, Pt. I, II, i.

Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! One can sometimes appreciate Dr Bowdler's motivation. :) Any hints on where I can look up "chamber-lie", incidentally? Google just gives me articles on Auschwitz. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From OED Online: chamber-lye – "Eng. regional and U.S. regional. Now arch. Urine, esp. as used domestically or agriculturally, typically for a purpose such as washing, the preparation of crops, or the care of horses." The passage from Henry IV, Pt. I was one of the quotations used in the dictionary. The context is that two "carriers" (deliverymen) are complaining about the poor condition of a stable. The second carrier says to the first that there isn't even a chamber-pot (jordan), so they have to urinate into the fireplace and fleas breed in the urine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the National Portrait Gallery etching itself, it is called Lubber's Hole which, again according to the OED Online, is "[a] hole in the ship's top, close to the mast, affording an easier way of ascent or descent than by climbing the futtock shrouds". It appears that a sailor who used the lubber's hole was seen to have taken a shortcut and was thus scorned, as a 1790 quotation states: "He becomes as much an object of ridicule, as a sailor who descends through lubber's hole." A 1792 quotation states: "And yet, Sir Joseph, fame reports you stole To Fortune's topmast through the lubber-hole." The reference to the lubber's hole probably alludes to the Duke of Clarence's service in the Royal Navy in his youth, and also hints at Dorothea Jordan's nether parts. A lubber is "[a] big, clumsy, stupid fellow; esp. one who lives in idleness; a lout". Similarly, the use of crack'd in the subtitle may allude to crack meaning "[a] woman of broken reputation; a wench, a prostitute", which is attested by 17th- and 18th-century quotations; and a jordan is something that a man may introduce his member into. If all that wasn't enough, the etching shows the Duke sticking himself into the opening in the chamber-pot. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really full of innuendo. As well as all the things Smuconlaw has noted, "lubber" is a vernacular pronunciation of lover. "Land-lubber", for "land-lover", a non-sailor. So "lubber's hole" is "lover's hole". Isn't the whole thing a libellous attack on the heir to the throne? It rather puts Hilary Mantel's comments on the Duchess of Cambridge in the shade. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Gilray was _very_ good at sailing close to the wind - I think (although I may be wrong) that the only cartoon for which he was actually prosecuted was Sin, Death and the Devil, because it depicts Queen Charlotte naked. But the relationship between "Silly Billy" and Mrs Jordan was a matter of public notoriety (David Cameron is one of their numerous descendants), and the image, extremely suggestive though it is, doesn't contain anything that's actually obscene in isolation. Tevildo (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You and I" plus one or more others?

When referring to myself and the person I'm talking to the standard phrase in English is "you and I". If one adds more people to the "list" is there a preferred order? Which of these is better, if any?: "You, I, Joe and Jane..." or "Joe, Jane you and I..." or "You, Joe, Jane and I..." Roger (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You, Joe, Jane and I". Second person always comes first and first person always comes last. Angr (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Do we have a citation for that? You and I and George (see Stan Kenton) comes immediately to mind as a counter-example. Tevildo (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified I'm talking about the prescriptive rule. Of course actual usage may deviate from that. Angr (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a citation offhand, but recall being told as a matter of etiquette that the first person should generally be mentioned last. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You and I" is the standard phrase only if we are the subject of the sentence. As objects of the verb, the standard phrase is "you and me", but this simple rule seems to be broken with increasing frequency. Dbfirs 20:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. So the "you first, I last" rule is a matter of ettiquette rather than grammar. The sentence I was thinking of is something like "You, Jane, Joe and I need to discuss the plan." I presume that the object form would follow the same pattern for the same ettiquette reason. Roger (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would please you, them and me. Except when it pleases you, me and everyone else. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard statement

Hello there, I am looking for standard statement which I looked in a book or an internet article. But unfortunately, I forgot the proper sequence and standard grammar of it. It looks like: " In training, it's 80 percent physical and 20 percent mental. But in battle, it's 80 percent mental and 20 physical." I am not sure whether it's correct form since english is my second language. Any help would be appreciated.--180.234.70.247 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by Google results, this doesn't seem to be a sufficiently established saying to have any standard form. What you wrote is correct English, though it may be easier to say "Training is 80 percent physical and 20 percent mental, but battle is 80 percent mental and 20 physical." "percent" tends to be used more in American English, and "per cent" in British English. It's not wrong to begin a sentence with "But", but it gives a slightly staccato feel. 86.128.2.25 (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Yogi Berra's take on baseball, and generalizing it: "Ninety percent of the game is half mental." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are looking for might be related to the Pareto principle, sometimes known as the 80-20 rule. Astronaut (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of official federal language in the US

Wouldn't that imply that you can contact the federal government in any language that you want? Or demand that the government contact you in any language? If there is no official law or regulation saying that American English is the official language, then how can the government deal with such cases? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution is obviously in English, as are the laws and most official records and documents. The government produces some informational literature in non-English languages, and conducts some (mainly diplomatic) correspondence in certain cases, but trying to communicate with any federal office in any random language won't get you too far... AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to communicate with federal offices in English won't get you much further :P Wrad (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, imagine that someone gets fined or sued, and gets a written communication about it in English. If you don't have English as an official language, the government cannot claim that the person should understand it. There is certainly a reasonable expectation that most will understand it, and English is indeed the de facto language. But, I see there's still a door open to the recipient, who could claim that he didn't understand some requirement. What law or rule would they apply against such tactics? Can the government appeal to common sense? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you scream as loud as you like in your own idioglossia and expect the court to listen? No, and any lawyer who tells you so needs disbarring. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. citizens and residents have no legal or constitutional right to government communications in their preferred language. Also, ignorance of the law (because one doesn't understand English) is no defense. The de facto language of the U.S. government is English, and behooves anyone receiving communication from the government to have it translated if he or she does not understand English. Likewise, if a person wishes to make him or herself understood to the government, English is obviously the language to use. That said, especially in areas with large numbers speaking languages other than English, government publications may appear in languages other than English, and the government, responding to demand, may hire people who understand other languages in addition to English, since there is no legal requirement to use English exclusively. Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the flip side of this. Since there is no official language, does that mean a court (for example) could decide to conduct its proceedings in Spanish or Chinese? If all the parties knew the language and consented would it be permissible? And what is some party didn't consent? If the government is allowed to make demands in English to non-English speakers, can they also make demands in Navajo to non-Navajo speakers? I would guess there is actually some set of regulations or procedural rules saying that most official business needs to be conducted in English, but if it is mandated somewhere that English is to be used, then that pretty much undercuts the whole argument that we don't have an official language. Dragons flight (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly have a de facto language of government administration. AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubts about English being the de facto the language. But to what would someone appeal in Dragons' scenario above? To a certain law, rule or precedent that indeed says English is the language, to a certain law, rule or precedent that all should speak in the de facto language, whatever it is, or to common sense? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 2000 Executive Order No. 13166 require that public entities receiving federal funds must have all vital documents available in every language that their clients speak; every language, not just Spanish. Why? Because the U.S. has never declared an official language and as such, the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 still applies."—The Official Language of the U.S. and its Impact on the Translation Industry, paragraph 4. (In this paragraph, "as such" is a dangling modifier.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest is the Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. § 1827). Some courts have local rules that require English documents. The First Circuit Court of Appeals does (Rule 30: " The court will not receive documents not in the English language unless translations are furnished."), while others apparently do not (I didn't see it in the 7th circuit's rules; it may be stipulated by other rules though). I saw similar state court rules as well. Shadowjams (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All federal court proceedings must be in English, or be translated or interpreted into English, even if every single person in the courtroom speaks another language better. This incudes Puerto Rico, where local court preceeding are conducted in Spanish. This article gives an interesting review of the justification, and of the problems that arise, and those that are avoided http://www.Faliciapousada.weebly.com/Fuploads/publication_form_of_english_in_federal_courts_of_pr.pdf&ei=9BtOUdXvLoKB4gSAr4HABQ&usg=AFQjCNGk_SAYmy-swVVEvT0I7hb6JTO2WQ&bvm=bv.44158598,d.Yms&cad=rja. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]