Language desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

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 28

Position of a question mark in quotes

I was reading a copy of The Youth's Companion for 1838, and I noticed an odd placement of a question mark inside of a quote. Was this common in the era, or was it a quirk of this particular publication? In http://youthscompanion.com/1838/12/28/december-28th-1838-vol-12-no-33/m129/, the quote says, "Mustn't he? mother". It certainly isn't where the question mark would go these days. RNealK (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark goes inside when the original speaker was asking a question (He asked, "do you want fries with that?") and outside when the writer is questioning what was said {Did she say "I'm coming" or not?). μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is referring to the placement of the question mark after the word "he" rather than after "mother". I would have expected the sentence to read "...Mustn't he mother?" CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musn't he mother whom? I'd have expected a comma before "mother", but I agree with your basic point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence (with original punctuation) is

"Samuel has taken my shovel away, and says he is going to use it now, and I want you to make him give it back to me, for I am going to do all the shovelling myself. Mustn't he? mother," he continued...

The modern punctuation would be

"... Mustn't he, Mother?" he continued

or

"...Mustn't he? Mother?" he continued

I suspect that the original compositor didn't want to put anything other than a comma before the quotation mark, as the (author's) sentence continues after the quote. Later on in the text, we have

"You have guessed rightly, dear father," replied Robert.

where Robert's sentence is complete at "father", but the author's isn't. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the grammar is modern, but the sentence is indicating that the speaker asked the question "Mustn't he?" then immediately said a new interjection, "Mother". The only quirk in that case is that Mother is not capitalized. I support this by noting that the sentence continues from the quotation above with "without giving time for reply" which is meaningless if the line of conversation ended with a question. gnfnrf (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question as given here is misleading due to an omission of the original quote. The actual original quote was (bold formatting added):

"Samuel has taken my shovel away, and says he is going to use it now, and I want you to make him give it back to me, for I am going to do all the shovelling myself. Mustn't he? mother," he continued, without giving time for a reply.

The continuation after the question meriting a reply was "mother", indicating that "mother" was not part of the question. If anything, mother should probably be capitalised. But otherwise, no change to the grammar is required, though an ellipsis or exclamation mark might clarify the intent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeffro77. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting detective work. Jeffro77 is right.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the meaning of 'ship'

Does 'a ship' mean 'a woman' in the following passage?122.19.123.34 (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)dengen[reply]

  "She's forgiven him for not phoning her.  She doesn't know anything 
  about a brainless blonde that should be forgiven."
  "Oh...I don't think it was anything really..." Aidan backtracked.
  Eve's eyes glinted.
  "Well, only a ship that passed in the night, or the evening, a blonde, 
  silly Welsh ship. I don't know, for God's sake.  I wasn't there.  
  I was only told."---Maeve Binchy, Circle of Friends, p.495.

A variation on "two ships passing in the night", a metaphor for a very short relationship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or might not even be a relationship, just an attraction. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's question explicitly, yes, ship means woman in this instance. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends what we mean by "mean" in the context of a live metaphor. Literally (that is, ignoring the fact that this is a metaphor), "ship" means "boat, ocean-going vessel" in this sentence, but it (metaphorically) refers to a woman. On the other hand, the sentence "She was a blonde, silly Welsh bike" does not use a live metaphor, and "bike" literally means "woman (of loose morals)". Tevildo (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I think the previous replies have not made clear is that here "ship" refers to a woman only because the passage has already invoked the very familiar expression "ships that pass in the night". Without that context, it would not make sense to refer to her as a ship. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sailors traditionally call their ships "she", but that's not really the same context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term JW offensive?

Is the term "JW" offensive to Jehovah's Witnesses? I use the abbreviation very often myself, but I avoid using it in the presence of Witnesses because I worry they might find it offensive. Would they, or do they use that term themselves (and if they do, do they mind outsiders also using it?)? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked BlackCab (talk · contribs) if they could help answer this. They were a Jehovah's Witness according to a user box on their page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wavelength is also a Jehovah's Witness. Someone could ask them. --Jayron32 17:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see "JW" being used a lot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses and nobody seems to be taking offence. Thincat (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and look at their website http://www.jw.org Thincat (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched unsuccessfully for an official answer in the Watchtower Online Library (http://wol.jw.org/), and perhaps there is no official answer. If you wish, you can write to the Governing Body in the United States (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/contact/united-states/) with your question. Some previous questions from readers have been published with answers (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200274728), and this one might be selected for publication. Incidentally, Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves by various names in various languages (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q35269#sitelinks-wikipedia), and initialisms vary accordingly. In the absence of an official answer, you can ask individual Witnesses that you meet at your door or on the street or at the local Kingdom Hall (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/meetings/).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing explicitly offensive about the term, but having spent more than 20 years in the religion in a variety of congregations and countries, I can say I never once heard a member refer to the religion or its adherents as "JWs", either at meetings or in informal, social settings. Nor does their literature ever use the term. The term "JWs" is widely used by non-Witnesses about them, and commonly (though not exclusively) in a derogatory or negative sense, which probably reinforces members' avoidance of the term. May I ask: is this an inquiry of a general nature, or related to the wording of existing articles on JWs?

The response from Wavelength notes that he searched Watch Tower Society literature for "an official answer" without success. The religion's leaders assume to dogmatically state an emphatic position on many things that pertain to the lives, beliefs and conduct of members and though it's not beyond the realms of possibility they could make a stand and say "Yes, we all find the term offensive", they have so far refrained. It was intriguing, however, that they chose "jw.org" as the official domain name for their website. BlackCab (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be easier to remember than spelling it out. Also, one could argue there's a difference in tone in calling an organization "JW" and calling its individuals "JW's". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what could be offensive about it in relation to an individual. It's just an abbreviation of the actual name, after all. Like RC for Roman Catholic. I think they'd rather be called that than "micks". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Buddhist, Jack, and being called a 'B' means something completely different in both mine and your dialects. JW, however, is a perfectly fine term to use. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you from observation that the term "JW's" is typically condescending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term JW is informal, but on its own is not offensive. It is promoted by the organisation in their official website address and associated logo. Their 1930–1985 Publications Index repeatedly refers to their publication Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Twentieth Century as the "JW Brochure" (where the formatting differs to their usual use of publication codes). The terms "JW" and "JWs" are also used (but not frequently) in JW literature in first-person accounts given by JW members. The abbreviation "JW" was given prominence at conventions in 1931 leading up to the official change to the name Jehovah's witnesses at that time ("witnesses" was not officially capitalised until the 1970s). As with any term, its usage might be considered offensive in certain contexts. The term "JW's" would actually be a possessive rather than a pluralisation; the correct pluralisation would be JWs, however, the initialism JW is also sufficient to refer to the plural, since the proper name of the organisation—Jehovah's Witnesses—functions in the singular as a proper noun, but also in the plural for describing a group of individual members, however for readability, JWs is generally the clearer plural form. "a JW convention" (adjectival form of proper noun), "the JW's convention" (possessive), "we are JWs" (plural), "he is a JW" (singular), "they are JW" (affiliation with the proper noun), "they are JWs" (plural).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a greengrocer's plural. You're right that "JWs" would be correct. I've only heard "JWs" used in a condescending way, but it sounds like the church itself doesn't really see it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn those greengrocers' plurals. Want some carrot's? :)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this week I'm into rutabaga's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer BlackCab's question above, this isn't about Wikipedia at all. I'm asking because a few months ago a Jehovah's Witness came by my apartment on three different occasions to give me the Watchtower and other pamphlets and talk to me, until finally I told him to stop coming. Then the other day, someone else came by for the same purpose. And I was about to say to her, "No thanks; another JW came by a few months ago and as I already told him, I'm not interested", but then I thought JW might be offensive, so I said "someone from your organization" instead. But then I started wondering whether in fact it would have been offensive, so I asked here. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they were coming by without your express permission, you were kinder than you needed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always a good approach. Exceed all people's expectations, in all ways, at all times, no exceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a religious person living in the city known as the "atheist capital of Europe" I do feel a certain empathy with the Jehovah's Witnesses here, but that doesn't mean I want to invite them in to talk about the Bible either. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you say "ZJ" in the "atheist capital of Europe"? It's hard to say whether the equivalent for "JW" in other languages might be considered offensive, depending on the societal norms regarding informal speech.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]