Language desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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.

October 18

'Full stop' Confusion

In which category (Bulleted list, Numbered list) I shouldn't use a full stop in the end of the line? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Generally, you should use full stops only if the items in the list are grammatically complete sentences. If you're referring specifically to lists in Wikipedia, see the last two bulleted entries at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Bulleted and numbered lists. Deor (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement didn't help Deor, I've seen sentences in lists (Bulletined as well as Numbered) some of which uses full stops and some don't. –- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You're assuming that everything you've seen is correct? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm trying to figure what's the appropriate way Mandruss.

Pretend the above sentence is in a list of both 'Bulletin' as well as 'Numbering', along with many other points or by itself... Should it end in a full stop or not? I understand if it's a word or two a full stop is not required regardless the 'list' type. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, that example would be full-stopped in either type of list, per Deor's reply and per the guideline information to which he referred you. It is a complete sentence. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged Mandruss. I understood what Deor mentioned, the issue is, I seen many lines, some with 'full stop' and some without. Many I asked, they all replied both works fine. Only once a person rejected 'full stop' in a 'Bulletin' list of mine; in a C.V. Some of Wikipedia's articles are like the issue I stated, some with and without 'fullstops'. Annoyingly, both problems are in one 'list' type. Don't mind me asking, "Are you guys sure?" -- (Russell.mo (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The guideline is very clear, I think. If you follow the guideline, and someone says you're wrong, all you have to do is refer them to the guideline. Most people will then concede, unless they can show good reason to deviate from the guideline. If they don't concede or show good reason, then you can decide whether it's worth pursuing via dispute resolution. Or, if there are other editors around, you can try to gain consensus in article talk. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No that's fine, I requested for help and both of you provided clear guidelines. I needed to clear my confusion. Thank you once again Mandruss! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

'Numeric' letter(s) conversion to 'Alphabetic' words

When do I spell numeric letters as words? E.g., ‘8’ for ‘eight’… -- (Russell.mo (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

In publishing, this is a matter determined by the "house style" of the publication for which one is writing. A common style for journalism is to use words for one to ten and numerals for all other numbers. Some book publishers use words for everything up to and including one hundred and numerals for greater numbers. In either case, there are usually a number of exceptions and qualifications (for juxtaposed numbers, numbers at the beginning of sentences, quantities such as "1.5 million", and so forth). Wikipedia's own style is set forth at MOS:NUMERAL. Deor (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So our cut-off on Wikipedia is nine, not ten. Interesting. I have seen twelve used as cut-off as well, in German at least, where all numbers from zero to twelve (except seven) are monosyllabic; in English, eleven is slightly long, but still not longer than twelve when written. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me the most important rule is to avoid two numeric values in a row:

"Eight threes are 24."
"Eight 3's are 24."
"8 threes are 24."
"8 3's are 24."

The last one is clearly the ugliest. I'd go with the first, myself. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still another rule is that if a number is a simple count or measurement viewed as a statistic then it should be written in digits (except perhaps for very small numbers), but if it is meant descriptively then words should be preferred (except for large numbers). Thus "There are only five cities where you can do this: New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Miami"—you're thinking of the cities as individual places. But "There are currently 5 states with no sales tax"—you're just giving the size of a group, as a statistic. My example included an enumeration of the five cities only in order to clarify how you are thinking of the number; you could still say "five" even if you didn't list the cities, and you could say "5" even if you did list the states provided that you thought of that information as incidental.

This describes the usage I personally prefer, but I didn't invent it; I've definitely seen a description along these lines in some style guide somewhere. But I don't know where, to cite it. --174.88.135.88 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

My own inclination is to spell it out if it is only one word or of it's rounded; "my school had 200 students" suggests (to me) that the number is exactly 200, while "my school had two hundred students" does not. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did make this mistake. Thanks Tamfang! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I also tend to follow the "one word rule" so I would usually write zero to twenty as text and use digits from 21 onwards. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted, Thanks. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

'Participle' Confusion

How do you use things like n’t, ‘ve, ‘s when classifying the 1st, 2nd or 3rd e.g., I shouldn’t have/I should not have, he shouldn’t have/he should not have, they shouldn’t have/they should not have… -- (Russell.mo (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Are you asking, do they affect the person of the verb? If so, no, they are simply abbreviations, and the person is determined by the pronoun, although it gets complex if you have multiple pronouns, like "you and I" which is technically a first-person plural (or dual), inclusive. Explain further if that's not what you are asking. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the words "They shouldn't have", there is no participle. The participle will usually be the next word (if a verb), X-ed in "They shouldn't have X-ed"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP had particles in mind; an auxiliary verb in English can correspond (in semantic function though not in syntactic form) to a particle in some other languages. —Tamfang (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm reminded of a famous Dizzy Deanism, commenting on a batter who swung and missed a pitch that was well out of the strike zone: "He shouldn't hadn't oughta swang." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I feel ashamed to say, I'm not familiar with the English grammars or grammatical orders... Please don't tell me to go and learn it as I don't have the spare time, just tell me, what shall I use formally in writing. Q: Does it depend on the style of, the way you express a statement in writing and so on? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)) @AnonMoos: I understand your example, what shall I use for I, you, he, she? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You shan't speak so rudely when you are discussing things here. We are not here to teach you the English language. If you don't understand English grammar, go learn it. Everybody who speaks English correctly had to take in the proper ways of saying things. So stop being a haughty punk and be more respectful of others. If you are confused with specific things, we can assist, but do not waltz on in here and demand to be given special privilege. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A teensy bit of an over-reaction, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, I thought so too. The abbreviations n’t, ‘ve etc. are common in spoken English, but should not be used in formal written English. As Medeis explains above, there is no difference in this rule between 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons, just a difference in the form of the abbreviation (I've; you've; he's, she's; they've) (for I have; you have; he has, she has; they have). See the Wiktionary entries have and be for some details of irregularities in these verbs. Dbfirs 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Dbfirs, what I don't get is, when to use what during writing! E.g., "I have to go to school". I can't write "I've to go to school", I can say "I've to go to school". Note that a lot of sentence vary while using the aforementioned. What shall I use while writing formally -- (Russell.mo (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The usual rule is that you should not use any contracted forms in formal writing unless you are quoting speech. Dbfirs 06:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do people say "I've to go"? —Tamfang (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In England, from Charles Dickens to the present day, though the "have" is expanded when emphasis is required. Don't they say that in America? "I've got to go" is more common here. Dbfirs 06:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In America, formally you would say "I have to go". Maybe sometimes "I have got to go", although that seems excessive. And instead of "I've to go", it has evolved as "I've got to go". Or, as with any expression that has "got to" in it, "I've gotta go", or just "Gotta go". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell.mo. The rules on when you can use the contracted form in speech (and hence in informal writing) depend on prosody. The contracted forms are almost never used without a relatively stressed word following. So you don't use them at the end of a sentence or clause ("That's the kind of guy I'm" is not grammatical, though Gershwin deliberately used it for a clever rhyme); and most speakers use the contracted forms of "have" (-ve, -s) only when it is an auxiliary (followed by a past participle): I've seen him today, but not when it's a full verb: I have a friend, I have to go, not I've a friend, I've to go. There are some people, particularly in Britain, who use these last forms, but they are rather old fashioned, and many people would never say them. However, in British English there is an alternative form I've got, he's got etc, where got does not have its own meaning (such as acquired) like the American gotten, but just provides a stressed word that allows the contraction before it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colin, your explanation is better than mine, and I'm not offended at being described as "rather old fashioned" :-) Dbfirs 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dumb or stupid Tharthan? When you post something, you are requesting, demanding an answer. I mentioned things in advance so that whoever is responding is aware of the matter. You are requesting/demanding/posting so that you get a quicker answer for you thoughts. I clearly understand this is Wikipedia, you clearly don't! Don't disrespect me again please. Regards. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

JackofOz, Dbfirs Yes, I suppose you're right. Nevertheless, someone who is demanding things where they have no business demanding needs to be reminded of such. Otherwise we risk jadedness.

@Russell.mo: A request is by no means equivalent to a demand. A demand is forceful, whilst a request is not. Not understanding this very stark difference can cause big problems. On Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, one is supposed to abide by proper etiquette. You have failed to do so. Now, granted, I too have failed, for I have (out of anger) made a personal attack, which I hereby apologise for. However, many people (including myself) take kindly neither to indolence nor to demands. It must be understood that we here at the reference desk are not here to do your bidding nor to replace actual instructors on a subject. To quote the heading informational section of the reference desk "We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point". As such statements like "Please don't tell me to go and learn it as I don't have the spare time, just tell me, what shall I use formally in writing" are not acceptable. They are very rude and show lack of understanding anent the fact that the reference desk is composed of people who offer to answer you. Furthermore, you do not pay us to find the information you seek for yourself; we do so because we wish to offer answers. As such, you'd ought to be more respectful of the people here, and not start making demands or setting conditions for how something is to be done. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharthan:I understand you, I didn't realise someone will be offended by such a statement. Many do speak/write like me; I've read through some of the posts... I do know the difference between posting, demanding and requesting, technically they are all different, informally, you are trying to retrieve something, e.g., from thoughts, gestures, answers, reply's, actions, reactions to '...'. I'm just a bit busy. I hate reading, but I have to. I do kind of like it, a bit now, but I really can't waste reading something else than what I am currently reading. I seek help from Wikipedia when I get confused with my readings, and when I do need a quick answer.

I apologise.

Another thing, you don't risk no jadedness, if you are a volunteer, than must possess a good attitude as a helper regardless of what they come up with. Simple logic!

(Russell.mo (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. I'm just happy to hear that this was just a misunderstanding. You see, there are some people these days who actually go around ordering people to do things for no reason and don't understand that they shouldn't be doing that. It's a shame, because the number of those people seems to be growing. It's good to see that you are not one of those people.

And, fair enough. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell.mo is by his own acknowledgment not a native English speaker, and so some infelicities of expression can be expected. When he said "just tell me", he probably meant what you or I would say, "what I really need to know". It's to his credit that he's endeavouring to expand his knowledge of English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He did prefix it with "Please". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your helps, clearing all the confusions and distresses. Please don't have any hard feelings about me or others. Clever people are altogether in one site, bound to have arguments... I wish I could make some of you my friend, since you've always helped, it's unfortunate that I cannot (there is no system and this is not facebook). After a long time, I found an opportunity to hang around with clever people. I love Wikipedians! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

I have a noun and I have to verb are two entirely separate expressions. It's always fine to say "I've a book in my pocket", because the verb expresses possession. But "I have to go" does not express possession of to go. It expresses obligation, and should never be abbreviated in speech or in informal writing, at least not in America. Be aware also that the obligation sense is usally pronounced as "I hafta go" with the tee changing the vee to eff. Again, this does not happen in the possession sense. BTW, "help" is like rice, it takes no plural under normal circumstances. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awh. Thanks! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The seemingly simple verb "have" has a more complicated origin. It's actually the convergence of at least two different words.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I think Bugs may have somewhat misinterpreted the source. The word have in English has only one source from Indo-European, *kap-, which is cognate with cap- verbs like capture in Latin. Confusingly, Latin habeo also means "to have", but it comes from the PIE root *ghabh-, which is ultimately the source of "give" in English. The (late) Latin usage may have influenced the English usage.

(It's entirely possible that ghabh and kap were variants of an even early identical root, perhaps due to dialect borrowing, which gives pairs like shirt and skirt, shape and (land)scape, or ship and skipper in English) but that's entirely speculative at this point.)

What's interesting is that while neither Proto-Germanic nor Classical Latin had periphrastic perfect forms with helping verbs of the type "I have verb-ed" with to have and a past participle, these forms did develop (at least for transitive verbs) in both Romance and Western Germanic: Yo lo he leido; Ich habe es gelesen. (I am not sure about Norse or Gothic). μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12th century Arabic constellation

Hi all.

Can anyone identify the star constellation heading on the left page in this image of the Doha manuscript of the Book of Fixed Stars? A literal translation would do as I can identify the modern constellation from that. It's just that I can't read Arabic script.

I need this information because I would like to nominate the image as a Featured Picture.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinka van Dam (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be Corona Borealis -- I can't read the first word but the rest says "al-iklil ash-shamali wa-huwa al-fakkah" (Northern Crown, and it [is] Al-Fakkah [the broken one]).--Cam (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it might be worth, according to Allen's Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning "Al Iklil al Shamāliyyah" and "Al Fakkah" (his spellings) are indeed Arabic names of Corona Borealis. Deor (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first word is kawakbah (if you'll pardon my translitteration), i.e. constellation. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this. I've just had confirmation of Corona Borealis from an expert and the right side is the star list for Boötes. Grateful for your input. I'll nominate the image thids evening or tomorrow morning. Thanks again. 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinka van Dam (talk • contribs)

Contemporary assessment of Rabindranath Tagore by western media and literary critics

I want to know how do the public at large in the western world (USA,Western and Eastern Europe ,Russia ,Australias and also the African countries perceive Rabindranath Tagore ,what is the level of popularity is he viewed as a superhuman entity or is he seen as one of the greatest exponents of world literature.In Bengal he is worshipped like a God.It is said that YB Yeats played a key role in translating The Gitanjali. Was Bernard Shaw critical about Tagore. What was his opinion regarding this man and his creations in public and private.How does the British and American public seen and sees Tagore and his work.I am a Bengali and find his works and songs not at all appealing. I find most of them artificial and arousing morbid emotions.Most of the Bengali people will frown upon me and mock me as uncultured and that i am imbecile lacking the mental capability to relish such great creation. I want to know the global assessment and how did the men in the British government appreaised him in private .Were those men his fans.117.248.137.209 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am British, and I have never heard of him. This is on the wrong desk, by the way. It should be on the Humanities desk. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, he did win the Nobel Prize, after all. -- Elphion (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, that is almost a recipe for oblivion. Have you ever heard of Grazia Deledda, Verner von Heidenstam, Rudolf Christoph Eucken, Carl Spitteler, Sigrid Undset or Pär Lagerkvist? Nobel Literature laureates all. Martin Amis is on record as saying "Serious stuff is bullshit. The Nobel Prize tends to go to solemn, gloomy buggers like Le Clézio and Saramago. I predict they will be completely forgotten". Does anyone outside Australia know anything of Patrick White? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on him: Rabindranath Tagore and looking at it, I note there is some mention of the response of some of the English literati to him: Graham Greene for example was quite critical. We are not familiar with his work today in England, much as we are not overly familiar with Omar Khayyam (who wrote the Rubaiyyat) or other polymaths of the Eastern world, mainly because (I guess) of our country's inherent (racist) disdain for countries it had formerly subjugated. His work is certainly not routinely taught in schools today, it wasn't in my school days and I doubt it was in my father's schooldays. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's famous enough that someone once asked me for a translation of him into Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that he's important and wonderful but haven't got round to reading him yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I learned about him several years ago working on . . . Wikipedia, when I was filling out some details on an American poetry magazine but that was not a contemporary encounter, rather historical; he got published in the US a little bit before his Nobel Prize. I recall love poems (not all gloomy [2] )Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Squire mocked him for dressing up platitudes. (The lines about the sempstress and the stone in that poem are fancy versions of well-known English-language proverbs.)

Louis Untermeyer wrote of Ezra Pound's critical acumen, "He 'placed' Tagore as literary artist, not as messiah, and saw the Bengalese poet become a cult."

I took a number of poetry classes in the late '70s and early '80s. We read translations from various European languages, and at least one textbook contained excerpts from Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat, but as I recall, there was nothing from any Indian language, and Tagore was never mentioned. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP, while assessing Tagore's relative low-profile in the West keep in mind that:

Translation of non-English poetry is rarely, if ever (are there any common exceptions?), taught in school. That precludes the possibility of Tagore being a "household" name comparable to Wordsworth, Keats, or even Plath.
Even among the (non-Bengali speaking) literati Tagore is known mainly though his self-translation in English, or second-hand translation of those English translations, which are generally regarded as of poor-quality and not reflective of the quality of his Bengali verse. For example the Encyclopedia of Literary Translation Into English:

It was through his own English translations of his works that Rabindranath Tagore became internationally known. Although his immense achievements as a Bengali writer undoubtedly made him deserving of the Nobel Proze for Literature in 1913, he was awarded it for his English volume of spiritual poems Gitanjali ... Nearly all the translations into other languages that followed the award were done from this and subsequent English volumes. Tagore's reputation outside Bengal thus came to be based on translations that were often second-hand and that have come to seem increasingly inadequate. Bland and archaic in their diction, flaccid in their rhythm, and often vaguely representing the Bengali phrasing and imagery, they remain an obstacle to true appreciation of his genius; but they cannot be wished away, and in [sic?] India will probably maintain their canonical status as the words of the poet himself.

So while you should feel free to dislike Tagore poetry, do not use his relative lack-of-fame outside Bengal/India as a crutch. Aside: For hose not familiar with Tagore's reputation within India: Most Indians will perhaps name Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Tagore as the three (non-contemporary) Indians most widely known outside India. In Bengal, the order will be reversed. :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]