Language desk
< March 8	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 10 >

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 9

bake/roast potatoes

I know we can either "bake" or "roast" potatoes, but is there any difference between the two verbs here? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.156.11 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are similar. But no one would roast a cake. Both terms refer to cooking by exposure to dry heat, but baking would generally be in an enclosed area (such as an oven) whereas roasting may or may not be enclosed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In America, a baked potato is a whole potato with the skin on, usually an Idaho variety intended for baking, cooked for an hour or more at over 400F.. It has a lighter, puffy consistency. Roasted potatoes are usually quartered (at least halved) or cut smaller, from usually peeled white or red potatoes. They have a denser consistency, and are usually cooked longer at lower temperatures. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, roast potatoes are cooked in fat or oil, while baked (also called jacket) potatoes are cooked 'dry'. Rojomoke (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roast potatoes: most associated with a Sunday roast, especially roast beef. Baked potato: a cheap, convenient, easy food prepared any day of the week and served with almost anything. "Roasting", as a culinary term, has its origins in things roasted over a fire. "Baked" things (like baked potatoes, cakes, bread) cannot readily be cooked in this way, as they need less direct heat, as found in a good oven. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in irregular rhythm

In the sentence "The rain dropped on the rooftop in irregular rhythm.", I'm not sure if "in irregular rhythm" is used properly as I have never seen such a phrase before. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.156.11 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The rain dropped on the rooftop in an irregular rhythm" is correct. You left out the indefinite article. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would generally be better to say with an irregular rhythm.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We normally say or write "The rain fell...." not "The rain dropped...". What do you mean by "irregular rhythm? If you mean the rain came down in fits and starts, or louder and softer, best say it that way. But what you probably are refering to is that rain falling on many surfaces makes a form of shot noise, which sounds like the hiss a radio makes when not tuned to a station, but often more harsh. This sort of noise can sometimes sound like a sort of irregular rythm to some people. If that's what you meant, that it's best to use an analogy, like I did. 120.145.172.89 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong grammatically or idiomatically with "The rain dropped on the rooftop in an irregular rhythm." μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's awkward but not incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm requires a regular pattern in time; raindrops falling at random intervals cannot be rhythm. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell that to John Gummoe. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, completely randomness is not rhythm, but it is possible for rhythm to be irregular, as for example in syncopation. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the wording is perfectly cromulent, but it places emphasis on the rain, making it an actor; the wording implies the rain is doing the dropping rather than merely falling. If the context was describing a storm, for example, using "dropping" would help personify it. Matt Deres (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese electronic device legends

Can some nice person please identify the Japanese characters in the equipment control knob labels show in http://i59.tinypic.com/jic1gy.jpg? I tried NewOCR.com, but it has no idea. 120.145.172.89 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

電圧計/voltmeter, 切替/changeover, 調整/adjustment, 電源/power supply or an outlet. The characters seem not written by native Japanese. Especially the character 電. Oda Mari (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Terrific! 120.145.172.89 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese control knob legends -2

Can anyone identify the Japanese characters in the scan at http://i59.tinypic.com/jp9zyh.jpg? 120.145.172.89 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This question dissapeared, so I re-enterred it below - now it has re-appeared again. It needs no answer here. 144.138.223.196 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese electronic equipment control descriptions.

Can anyone identify the Japanese characters scanned at http://i59.tinypic.com/jp9zyh.jpg? 144.138.223.190 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

同調蓄電器:同調/resonance or tuning + 蓄電器/capacitor, 補助蓄電器:補助/auxiliary + 蓄電器/capacitor, 倍率計:倍率 (器)/multiplier? + 計/meter, and 測定端子:測定/measuring + 端子/terminal. I note that the en translation could be wrong. Oda Mari (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation makes sense to me. It matches what the control knobs etc actually do. Many thanks! :-) 203.54.115.209 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese help with aviation technical terms

Would someone familiar with aviation terminology in Chinese double-check the English to Chinese translations here: en:User_talk:Kxx#File:Mah370path_labelled.png ? This is so a picture can be translated into Chinese for the Chinese Wikipedia Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not familiar with aviation terminology in any language, but it seems fine to me. If you're pressed for space, you could translate "lost contact point" as 失联处 --Bowlhover (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Had become' -vs- 'became'

Resolved

– ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really did try to find the answer elsewhere, but haven't found anything relating to this specific case, since it doesn't seem to be related to conditional predicates or subjunctive mood (or is it?). Is there any distinction, however nuanced, between the following:

Later, [this whatever] became a point of contention at the inquiry. —vs— Later, [this whatever] had become a point of contention at the inquiry.

~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one would be the usual wording. The past perfect tense ("had become") is used when describing an event that occurred before another, specified event in the past; so one might say "By the time of the inquiry, [whatever] had become a point of contention" because the becoming a point of contention occurred before the time of the inquiry, but if its becoming a point of contention occurred at the inquiry (as in your sentence), there's no reason for the past perfect—simple past is the correct tense. Deor (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to answer this without a wider context. The pluperfect is used instead of the preterite when some other past fact (often in a prior sentence) is being referenced. Either "John became a prostitute." or "John had become a prostitute by the time of his 14th birthday." But "John became a prostitute by his 14th birthday" is bad writing--it implies we should see this as normal and unrelated to other facts. And, "John had become a prostitute" by itself leaves us wondering why, or since what? The proper use of these forms is called sequence of tenses. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The context is within a narrative describing an incident in chronological order, except for this sentence which references the inquiry that is described in the following section. Both the incident and the inquiry are in the past (obviously, the incident occurred first). The actual sentence:

Later, the missing key and resultant lack of binoculars for the lookouts in the crow's nest became a point of contention at the U.S. inquiry into the Titanic disaster.

Thanks for the links; if you don't know what it's called, it's hard to look it up. I believe the sentence as written is correct; if not, please let me know. ::~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. One could also say (as an alternative) By the end of the U.S. inquiry into the Titanic disaster, the missing key and resultant lack of binoculars for the lookouts in the crow's nest had become a point of contention. Dbfirs 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cannot but/have to

Can the phrase "cannot but" mean "have to"? Is it correct in the following sentence "As it is tied down by its vine, the melon cannot but lie in the furrow."? A lot of thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.236.27 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see "cannot but" at Wiktionary, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note a slight difference in meaning. "Cannot but" tends to suggest that the action is inevitable and unavoidable, where "have to" means that the action is merely required, but could be avoided (though not without consequence). Mingmingla (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is an OK phrase to use in causal speech, but not in formal communications. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A quick search revealed its use in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, A Study of History, as well as in an 1812 letter by Thomas Jefferson addressed "to Colonel William Duane". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the exact opposite: It is more suitable in formal writing. To me it feels literary and perhaps slightly old-fashioned. 86.160.86.139 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should distinguish from "formal" or "official" from "literary." Literary writing can be understood to be more "formal," but "cannot but" would not be used in the "formal" contexts of highly technical/scientific or official/governmental/legal documents.--2604:2000:1054:7E:9C10:34AD:712:5A7B (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it sounds "quaint", so I'd expect it in old writings and in new, casual writing which are trying to sound quaint. Perhaps "technical writing" would have been a better way to describe where not to find it, than "formal" was. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]