Language desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

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 26

Fescal: German readers needed to help establish notability

Hi, there is a discussion at Talk:Fescal about the subject's notability, as the article has been AfD'd. I'm trying to help figure out if the subject is notable. One reference that has been provided in the discussion is to this magazine article, in this issue of Beat, a German publication. Hoping a German speaker could help to translate the copy and contribute thoughts as to whether this helps to establish notability, or if it's a reprint of a press release, or some other squirrely material. There are underlying questions as to whether or not some paid editors are involved in promoting the article subject, so scrutinizing the source material is kind of important here. Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The brief article reads like a very positive music review. However, it's impossible to know from the article itself who wrote it and whether it is a press release or other promotional material from people connected to the artist. I searched in all available repositories (digital content, print content, and PDF archive) at www.beat.de and could not turn up this article. I also searched Google with this string—fescal "traditionell gilt musik als eine kunst"—with the name of the artist and the first words of the article in quotes, and Google could find nothing. If this has only appeared in print, it might elude Google, but you'd think the magazine's search function would find something. Are you sure it was published in that magazine? Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the top of the box the text appears in is truncated. You occasionally see ads in papers laid out to look like a journalistic article, but they always include "Anzeige" or "Dies ist eine Anzeige" etc. ("Advertisement" / "This is an advertisement") at the top, which may or may not have been intentionally left out in the scan. These ads are never published in the exact same font as the medium's genuine articles, however, so I guess a trained eye could compare the typography of Beat 's articles with that of the text Cyphoidbomb linked. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in question is Beat #86 02.2013. It belongs to a column on pp 96-97 with the title Musiktipps aus dem Netz - Filesharing, compiled by Tobias Fischer. Whether the article is promotional material or not remains unclear. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accent in Yiddish

Hello,

I was using the YiddishPOP website to learn a few words of Yiddish. I have a suspicion that the main character, Nomi, has a non-native accent in Yiddish. Specifically, I was wondering if she might have a Modern Hebrew-influenced accent.

Can someone fluent in Yiddish gib a kuk and let me know? Thanks. 184.171.209.180 (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that you'll have to settle for my answers; DISCLAIMER: 4th generation American of Ashkenazic descent, naturalized Israeli since 1984, last 15 years in a polyglot workplace including two generations of native speakers and others with acquired Yiddish. My Yiddish reading/singing level=1, speaking/writing level=0.

That site appears geared to learners of conversational Yiddish. The lesson pronunciation sounds synthetic, North American if anything, with no influence of Modern Hebrew phonology. More significant is whether its demonstrated pronunciation resembles any of the authentic native Yiddish dialects or rather an attempt at a standardized form, as described on that page. Spoken Yiddish today is largely within Haredi communities and probably retains the geography-based dialect of each community's founders (as with their religious customs). I can't say whether Yiddish occurs as a native language among any secular Jewish communities, but rather is an acquired language among academics, folklorists and descendants of Ashkenazi forebears, notably in Greater New York, Buenos Aires and other holdovers of the Bundist tradition. As for receptive language study: acquiring vocabulary, including for the purpose of reading, would be more effective using texts and glossaries regardless of, or entirely disregarding, dialect variants. For pronunciation exemplars, listen to folksingers (e.g. Chava Alberstein), cantors with secular repertoire (e.g. Dudu Fisher), or entertainers (e.g. Mike Burstyn). Consider contacting a native-speaking tutor, perhaps at a Jewish community center or home for seniors. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deborahjay, Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm pretty certain that the "target" pronunciation is Standard Yiddish. BrainPopESL is made by the same people for learners of English as a second language, and also has the robot character, so it's fair to assume they're produced in a similar way. The English voice in that sounds quite natural, not computer-generated, at least to me. (What do you think?) Nomi's voice strikes me as human-like as well, but maybe you have a better ear for that than I do. One of the things that made me think Nomi's accent might be non-native is that the article Yiddish phonology says that in Standard Yiddish, the high vowels are [ɪ] and [ʊ]. But she uses [i] and [u] instead. For example, in Unit 1.3 she says Es zaynen do finf bananes with [finf], not [fɪnf] (or [fɪnɪf], which I know is the Polish way of saying it). In the same unit, she says Gut! Lomir mishn as [gut. lɔmiʀ miʃn.] instead of [gʊt] and [mɪʃn]. This also makes me think it's unlikely the voice would have been recorded by an English-speaker, since we have those lax vowels in our language. On the other hand, the article Modern Hebrew phonology says that in that language [i] and [u] are used. I don't think this is a matter of dialect, as anyone with a Polish or Ukrainian accent would say [gɪt] anyway, and Standard Yiddish is supposed to be very close to Lithuanian Yiddish in terms of pronunciation, according to what I've read. 184.171.208.24 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Term

There is a term/word which defines when a person thinks in clause phrase sequence. (EX) no sex with the ex/ the word begins with an A it has a S in it and a C in it. I am currently going through Websters, no luck yet HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.119.114 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agrammatism? (doesn't contain a "c" though) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "no sex with the ex" is an example of the phenomenon, it's not a very illuminating one. —Tamfang (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too struggle with "when a person thinks in clause phrase sequence". What can it mean? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is "asyntactic", has "a", "s", and "c", but your example, "no sex with the ex" does occur in that sequence in English syntax, so it wouldn't be asyntactic. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another wrong answer: "aphasic". Thincat (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

work at the textbook

I want to know if "work at the textbook" is a right phrase in "As soon as she borrowed the textbook from her friend, she began to work at it." Here by the phrase I mean "read and try to memorize what is in the textbook". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.159.208 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds non-standard to my native AmEng ears, but the meaning is still fairly clear. I'd suggest "began to work on it" or "work at understanding it" or even "work through it." SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

work at it implies more struggle than work on it. —Tamfang (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my BritEng ears, "working on a book" would probably imply writing it, whereas "working through a book" implies reading it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to work with a textbook, if you are using it as a reference. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or work (one's way) through a textbook. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the English word "God" a name or a title?

The lowercase god is just another word for deity. But God as a proper noun is typically referring to the Abrahamic god. (If it's referring to a non-Abrahamic deity, then that deity's name in transliteration would be used to avoid confusion. So, English speakers would say Nüwa when they mean to refer to her. Calling her "God" is misleading, even though she is a goddess.) Yet, it seems that even the Abrahamic god has polytheistic roots. Could YHWH be the name and God is merely the title? Then why do some people write God like this, G-d? Maybe it's suggesting that even the mentioning of God's name is too sacrilegious? 140.254.227.69 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YHWH is not really God's name, it's God saying "I am that I am" when Moses tries to get God to tell him what His name is. God's actual name is known only to God. God is our name for Him, so it's effectively the same thing, hence the G-d to avoid blasphemy. But it gets complicated. You may find Names of God interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YHWH is God's name. "I am that I am" is Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה‎). Two separate designations. See Names and Titles of God in Judaism.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 19:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He first said "I am that I am", and then said specifically that His "name" (or all he was willing to share with Moses) is "I AM". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after the "I am that I am" (which isn't even a good translation of the Hebrew), He says His name is "YHWH". Whether that is supposed to mean "I AM" or is a similar sounding, though unrelated, word/name is a subject of debate. Since, without vowel pointings, it's unreadable, nobody can be sure. See I Am that I Am#Hebrew Bible and Tetragrammaton--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, ehyeh אהיה and YHWH יהוה could easily be derivatives of the same triliteral root (or two closely related consonantal roots which are slight variants). It's not 100% certain that they originally were, but a relationship between the two words would seem natural to a speaker of ancient Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.227.69 -- "God" is a Germanic word, and so obviously does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew Bible texts. However, it is equated to theos in Greek and Elohim in Hebrew, words which are related to other words referring to divinity in those languages. YHWH was originally the name of the God of the Israelites, just as Chemosh was the name of the god of the Moabites, Qaws was the god of the Edomites, etc. If YHWH has any etymological relationships, it is with the Hebrew verb meaning "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Does that mean God is a concept? 140.254.226.227 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If YHWH is interpreted as a Hiphʕil conjugated verb form, then it could basically mean "he who causes to be" (though that's one speculation among many). AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about Jehovah at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391. There is a section on the non-distinctiveness of the words God and Father.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to be unnecessarily blunt, but I really would not take lessons in Hebrew from a group whose name itself contains a blatant Hebrew error. AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an error, it's the anglicized form, not unlike "Jesus". — kwami (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a mistranslation, going back to at least the KJV. There was no such word as "Jehovah" until that mistranslation came along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can a word be a (mis)translation if it didn't previously exist in the destination language (here English)? —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the historical process went from Hebrew to Latin. I'm not sure that "translation" is the correct term, but misunderstanding Hebrew scribal practices so that the Latin form is based on the consonants of one Hebrew word combined with the vowels of another Hebrew word, resulting in a chimera which was never used by Jews, would appear to be a slightly bizarre proceeding. AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami -- English "Jesus" derives from Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע , Greek Ιησους, Latin IESVS etc. by a many-centuries-long process of each language adapting the name from the preceding language as best it could, given the phonological and morphological characteristics of the borrowing language, plus the effects of regular sound changes which affected all phonologically-similar words within each language.

In strong contrast, "Jehovah" was created abruptly all at once by Christians who misunderstood the scribal conventions of Jewish manuscripts, and therefore inserted the vowels of one word within the consonants of a completely different word, resulting in a form which never existed in Hebrew. See Q're Perpetuum for some of the details... AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moos, they could (hypothetically) have learned a thing or two in the generations since adopting the name, but kept the name for continuity's sake. Plenty of examples of that in Science. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some errors which do not become any less erroneous with the passage of time -- see Mumpsimus... AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there are institutionalized mumpsimi in every discipline I know of, I'm not so ready to assume that a group is generally unreliable because it has not bothered to change nomenclature now known to be erroneous. When a phrase becomes a lexeme, as Jehovah's Witnesses has, I get the impression that most people rarely think about its component words. —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Words like mumpsimus, ignoramus, and mandamus do not generally take "-i" plurals (they certainly don't in the original Latin!). And students in science classes are not now taught that the sun revolves around the earth, regardless of how quaint and picturesquely time-encrusted that error might be. Some Christian scholars of Hebrew have known that "Jehovah" was erroneous since before there was a distinct group under the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" (in fact since around the time of the Millerites, a remote precursor of JW's), though scholars didn't start discouraging the use of "Jehovah" until the 20th century. I'm sure that there are many sincere and good people among the JW's, but the fact that their name contains a blatant Hebrew error makes it difficult to take any pretensions to Hebrew scholarship too seriously... AnonMoos (talk)

Oh? What is the authentic Latin plural of mumpsimus?

The crack about heliocentrism is disappointingly irrelevant to my narrow claim about terminology. —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mumpsimus" would almost certainly be indeclinable when used as an ad-hoc nonce substantive rather than an ordinary finite verb. If it were desired to form a respectable Latin noun from this form, some way would be found other than interpreting a 1st person plural verb ending as a 2nd declension nominative singular noun ending (which probably wouldn't be too appropriate except as a somewhat strained attempt at humor).

And I'm not too sure what trying to disparage "mere terminology" really means in an area where linguistics is an important part of what is at issue. The JW's claim special expertise or insight concerning what they call "God's personal name", but the fact that the very name of their group contains a blatant error with respect to that Hebrew name creates a dissonance which ends up undermining such claims among those with relevant knowledge... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Moses' conversation with God interesting:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to highlight what Bugs has brought up. You should read the whole passage anyways, but the relevant bit is But Moses said to God, “If I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord,[b] the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: Another good passage is Exodus 6: [2], which says "2 God also spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the Lord. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty,[a] but by my name ‘The Lord’[b] I did not make myself known to them." In English translations, by tradition, the name of God, YHWH, is typographically translated as "the LORD" in all caps (or sometimes in small caps), as it is in these cases. The footnote [b] in both of these passages notes this. When you read English translations of the Bible and see "LORD" in allcaps, know that that is using the actual name YHWH as the proper name of God. When you see "God" in normal type, traditionally that is "elohim", which is the generic word for "god". There's also the title El Shaddai, which is often translated as "God Almighty", though the meaning of Shaddai is not well understood. So, what you see here in these passages is God saying "When I appeared to Abaraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I told them I was "El Shaddai" (God Almighty, that is, his title) but I am telling you my personal name is YHWH. To sum up.

El and its forms like elohim are a generic word for "god", just as the generic word for you is "person"
YHWH is God's personal name, just as your personal name may be "John". YHWH means "to be" or "I am" or "I exist" or something like that, and there's intentional symbolism there that the actual name of God is simply "existance".
El Shaddai is probably God's "Title" or "style of address", just as Queen Elizabeth is "Her Majesty" or something like that. Though again, there's much less certainty about the origin or meaning of this name.

Hope that all helps. --Jayron32 23:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The various meanings ascribed to YHVH are a bit dubious. There's an assumption that the name must mean something profound, and there have been many attempts to figure out what it is, but it's also possible that it's simply the name of the one Hebrew god, out of many, that eventually became the national god of Israel. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way my minister explained it, names were ascribed great symbolic importance. When Moses asked God what His name is, he was trying to "get something" on God. God, being a tad smarter than Moses, didn't fall for that. He told Moses "I AM", which was kind of a polite way of telling Moses to mind his own business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami -- The pronunciation [v] for the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is completely anachronistic to the Biblical period. AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Allah, an Arabic word, is likewise a title which is used as the equivalent of a name. It comes from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word Elohim, and both words mean "God" as we say in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by the original poster, the Abrahamic 'God' has polytheistic origins; more specifically, Yahweh (Canaanite deity). Given that there is zero historical evidence for the Jews being in Egypt until 10 magical 'plagues' or the subsequent '40 years' in the 'wilderness' and that all evidence indicates the Jews to have arisen among the other Canaanite tribes, it is entirely unsurprising that their deity is actually one of the Canaanite pantheon. Aside from that, God is now frequently used in English as a name for the 'Abrahamic' deity rather than only a title.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that still hasn't been merged?

Yes, names are given a lot of meaning in the Bible. But there are lots of false etymologies as well. Whether it was important to assign meaning to a name centuries later has little to do with what they actually meant, especially if their origin had become obscure. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 -- I don't know that there's any evidence that YHWH was part of the general Canaanite pantheon in the same way that El, Baal, Anat, Mot, etc. were. The name YHWH does not occur in Ugaritic texts (our main source for Canaanite mythology), as far as I know. Rather, YHWH was the national or tribal god of the Israelites. Some (including King Solomon in his old age, according to the Bible) worshipped YHWH in conjunction with other deities, while others had a henotheistic or monotheistic conception of YHWH which did not allow this. AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we're going to pretend the story—written much later—about the Jews coming out of Egypt after 10 magical 'plagues' and trudging around the 'wilderness' for 40 years—with zero evidence—is real, there's no reason to conclude that the Israelites were not a group that arose from among the Canaanites.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, you've provided just as much evidence for your proposition that YHWH was Canaanites. The lack of evidence for the one does not mean proof of the other, and AnonMoos raises cogent points about the lack of evidence for your little hypothesis. --Jayron32 04:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly 'my little hypothesis'. But if you choose to believe in myths instead, that's up to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 -- YHWH was certainly worshipped by speakers of Canaanite languages, but the term "Canaanite pantheon" (which you chose to use) generally refers to figures widely known in the mythology of the Levant ca. 1000 B.C., for which our most detailed evidence comes from Ugaritic texts. This Canaanite pantheon includes El, Baal, Anat, Asherah, Ashtart, etc. YHWH was the national or tribal god of the Israelites, but there's no real evidence that YHWH was part of the "Canaanite pantheon" in any particularly meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend the term 'pantheon' in any particularly technical sense. Only that Yahweh was one of the deities worshipped by Canaanites, from whom the Israelites arose. The central point is that the Israelites were Canaanites, as was the origin of their deity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Canaanite pantheon" does have a special meaning, however -- to those in the know, it immediately brings to mind El, Baal, Anat, Ugaritic texts, etc., but not particularly YHWH. And it's a very reasonable hypothesis that Israelite identity coalesced in the area of the West Bank hill chain before 1000 B.C., as seen in the Merneptah Stele, and confirmed archaeologically by the spread of four room houses. However, an element of desert cultural heritage also influenced Israelite identity, and I'm not sure on what basis you conclude that YHWH was a pre-existing culturally Canaanite deity. The idea that YHWH was a deity of the coast and city dwellers who are the main enemy in the Book of Joshua seems dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 22:8 says YHWH is the deity of Balaam of Pethor in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Jews. Of course, if we're not to accept what Numbers says, the whole thing is irrelevant anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's set east of the Jordan, where Canaanite languages were often spoken, but not part of the land of Canaan according to the definition in Numbers 34:12. To speak of "Jews" (rather than Israelites) at that period is somewhat anachronistic... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's curious that the same God who spoke to Moses just a few verses earlier should also speak to Balaam, but we will probably never know how he came to hear the voice of the God of the Israelites. I don't read the verse as implying that YHWH was the deity of Pethor, only that Balaam heard his voice. Dbfirs 11:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of confused by all this. Isn't IP140 simply asking what the etymological origin of the English word is? There's no disputing it's an adjectival form cognate with either "invoked" our "poured" (i.e., libation) in other PIE dialects, including the exact cognate, Khoda, in Farsi. The word is not a name of an individual, but a descriptor. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the meaning of the sentence is clear

I wonder if the meaning of the sentence is clear to native speakers: "They were trying to memorize what they read from the book from time to time by flashlight." Thank you.

It is, but there would be better ways to word it. That is, it doesn't break any grammar rules, and is understandable, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to word it. It's technically not a Run-on sentence, but it has so many dependent clauses that aren't differentiated by commas or punctuation that it is hard to for the reader to parse. It would be better to rephrase it or break it up to make it easier to follow. For example "From time to time, they would read the book by flashlight, trying to memorize passages." That takes the core action "They would read the book" and keeps it concise, while putting the modifications on the action, like "when" and "how" and "why" around the sentence. The way you wrote it, it's hard to picture what is happening. --Jayron32 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't completely clear whether "from time to time by flashlight" refers just to the reading or to both the reading and memorizing. From the sentence as it is, it could mean that from time to time they were trying to memorize what they read from the book as they read it by flashlight. Or it could mean that they read the book from time by time by flashlight, and between those times they tried to memorize what they had read. I think you mean the first one, but I'm not certain.--Dreamahighway (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or that only some of their reading (and memorizing) was by flashlight. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

relative of Bed No.2

Does "He is a relative of Bed No.2 in this ward." make sense? Is it necessary to say "He is a relative of the patient for Bed No.2 in the ward."? A lot of thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.128 (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context. Two experienced nurses who had been working in the same hospital may use such speech among themselves frequently. It wouldn't be standard English in anyway, but people who work and live close together may develop a type of jargon or argot which isn't "standard" English but which is common and understood within the group. So, I could imagine two old Nurses in a hospital referring to patients by their bed numbers as though they were proper names, and that would be normal for them, even if it wouldn't seem normal to others outside the social group. Language tends to work that way; think about Diner lingo and things like that. --Jayron32 23:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all that. Outside that context, the most likely formulation would be "He is a relative of the patient in Bed No.2". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a patient being referred to in that manner might be rather insulted, as this is the classic case of them thinking of the patient as a number, rather than a person. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Editor 347,819. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

At least you've got a name, I am → 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Metonymy... AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]