Language desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

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 17

Legislative, vs. Statutory

I have just been asked to proofread a document and came across the following sentence:-

We need to check whether all relevant legislative, statutory and regulatory controls are in place.

To me, the first two terms (“legislative” and “statutory”) are tautological. Is this true? CoeurDeHamster (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory means "of or relating to a statute", whereas legislative means "of or relating to legislation". If we take the strict meaning of the word statute, it means only primary legislation that has been enacted by the legislature, and does not include secondary legislation (also known as delegated or subsidiary legislation) that is issued by authorized cabinet ministers or government agencies. However, all primary and secondary legislation can be rightly called legislation. Understood thus, legislative has a slightly wider ambit than statutory. But since legislative is the wider term, mentioning both legislative and statutory seems redundant. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, secondary legislation is implemented by means of a Statutory Instrument. Not sure if I'm helping though! Alansplodge (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, most governments are split into legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Statutes come out of the legislative branch (for the most part) and regulations come out of the executive branch (under authority given by statutes). I have not seen "legislative" encompass anything the executive or judicial branch does. So I would say "legislative" and "statutory" are synonymous in that context, with "statutory" being clearer. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handwritten Italian lines

Can anyone make out the handwritten lines below the drawing at the bottom left of the sheet? They seem to be in Italian but I could be wrong. I'm afraid there doesn't appear to be a higher resolution version of this file. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is definitely in Italian. It reads "Il famoso [illegible superscript] pittore Francesco Clein/ miracolo (?) dell secolo [illegible character] molto estimato dell R. Carlo della grande Britagna. 1646" I could have misread the word I've transcribed as "miracolo," as the script is a bit hard for me to read. This translates to "The famous [...] painter Francis Clein, miracle (?) of the [...] century, greatly esteemed by King Charles of Great Britain. 1646". Marco polo (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that fits with information we know about Francis Cleyn. I'll add it to the file description page. Perhaps Cleyn was described as a "miracle" because his artistic abilities were highly sought after – see our article. Also, since the date is indicated as "1646", might the illegible numeral be "17th [century]"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the illegible superscript is a superlative suffix -mo, converting "famoso" into "famosissimo" (or whatever the correct spelling is), i.e. "most famous". And I think the illegible single character is an ampersand, so it's "miracle of the century and greatly esteemed...". (You're supposed to know which century you're in.) --65.94.51.64 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)y[reply]

(e/c) I don't think it's "Il famoso [illegible superscript]..." but rather "Il famoss. [illegible superscript]" - that is to say, it looks like an abbreviated word beginning "famoss" and of which the superscript forms part. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense. Thanks, all! (P.S. I e-mailed the Lewis Walpole Library at Yale University, the source of the file, in case they wish to update their records.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the response I received from the Curator of Prints, Drawings, and Paintings of the Lewis Walpole Library: "Many thanks for your email. I appreciate both the transcription/translation of the quote and pointing out the date error. You are absolutely correct George Vertue did not execute this drawing in 1646. / I will be sure to make corrections as soon as possible. We are currently unable to do updates to the database while awaiting a technology update." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British English term?

What would the British English term be for this item? A jumper? Dismas|^(talk) 10:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fleece? (Wiktionary, sense 4.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or a pullover. "Sweater#Nomenclature" makes interesting reading. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a fleece - it says it's made out of terry cotton, which isn't fleece-like. Nor would I call it a jumper, not wooly enough. Pullover would probably cover it, or just top (as in, "That's a nice top, is it new?") DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On that website, it's under "sweaters", which is ok, but "sweatshirt" might be better, or, as DuncanHill says, "top". It's not a fleece, nor a jumper. Bazza (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatshirt doesn't seem to be a very British term. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English adopts words from all sorts of exotic countries. When we get a new item of clothing from abroad, we generally just borrow the foreign name for it - pyjamas and t-shirt spring to mind. We Britons have however, drawn the line at sweatpants, since pants are underwear in the UK and it conjures up a most unpleasant mental image - we've gone with "jogging bottoms" which is only marginally better in my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it does perhaps conjure nicer images, depending of course on how optimistic the individual imagination. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Indeed. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks to these Brits, "bottoms" equals "mud flaps" to me, and "jogging" consequently becomes "jostling". I also can't take "trousers" seriously, because of the snake. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Point of order, none of them were born in Britain, and only one of them has even dual citizenship. --Jayron32 00:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

But I heard the fictional band play it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What, an American actor can't play a British character? —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Jayron was merely correcting IH's statement that Spinal Tap were British. --Viennese Waltz 10:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The members of Spinal Tap are fictional characters (notwithstanding marketing developments after the film), and they are presumably British. --Trovatore (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

When you put "these Brits" it sounded like you were referring to the actors in the film. --Viennese Waltz 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

When you say "you", are you referring to me? If so, the correct word is "you". Anyway, yeah, it was ambiguous. Glad we've figured it out. Wouldn't want to look stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

It's a fleece. It would be a hoodie if it had a hood; and both of these terms describe something to wear over a tshirt, usually outside on a windy/cold dry day. 'Sweatshirt' implies a long sleeved garment without a tshirt below. 'Pullover' is acceptable but more generic and out-dated term. Admittedly $70 isn't the first price to be triggered by the word 'fleece.'--2.100.80.135 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do they ever teach etymology in schools?

--66.190.99.112 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some school somewhere teaches it. Likely even two. --Jayron32 12:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took it in high school circa 1990. Dismas|^(talk) 13:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was certainly taught about the idea of etymologies and how they work in junior high school Latin class, when we had to find English descendants of Latin vocabulary words, but I've never heard of a school (or even a university Linguistics Department) teaching a course called Etymology. Pais (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a class called "Greek and Latin roots of English", which was all about etymology (I took it because it would be easy and I got 102% overall, haha). Our linguistics department also had a historical linguistics class, which is kind of related to etymology. Lots of schools have a History of the English Language class, which would discuss etymology too. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did you get 102%? Did your school not have anyone on the staff who could count? DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire class was likely offered some extra credit work where doing more work than was was in the course assignments would give them extra points. It's often used to help kids not fail or to keep having a "bad day" affect your grade a lot. "Oh, you lost the assignment? You can do extra credit to make up for it." If Adam had received 100s on all his regular assignments and then did some or all of the extra credit, it would be possible to get 102%. See Extra credit. WHAAOE!! Dismas|^(talk) 18:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, exactly, plus bonus questions on tests that were supposed to be impossibly hard. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In both Eng Lang and Eng Litt at school we were encouraged to look up historical usages and etymologies to deepen our understanding of texts. I should just note that by "school" I mean "school" - a building occupied by children and their keepers, not "university" - a place where people who are too old to be kept at school go to have all the nonsense that was put into them at school taken out again. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the focus on literature in all my other grades, and spelling in elementary school, in tenth grade English we had almost no literature, and focused on grammar, vocabulary, irregular verbs, and greek and latin roots. This was preparatory for taking the SAT. We never had explicit etymology as such, but taking French was a class in etymology (and even English spelling) by proxy. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Chinese name

Is the Chinese name in File:TauBayHouston.JPG 飛機? Or are they not the right characters?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the right characters. They seemed weird to me at first, because they mean "airplane", but then I discovered that the Vietnamese name of the restaurant means something like "flying boat" (a type of airplane). Perhaps the name memorializes the Vietnam War in some way. Marco polo (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reference to the noodle dish phở tàu bay (airplane pho), an supersized variation of traditional pho.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, if wikt:飛機#Vietnamese is correct, 飛機 isn't even pronounced tầu bay, it's pronounced phi cơ, which certainly seems a better match with Mandarin fēijī, Cantonese fei¹ gei¹, and Min Nan hui-ki. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the start of the weekend ?

is Friday evening the beginning of the weekend I know Saturday & Sunday are the weekend days.But is Friday evening the beginning/start of the weekend. thank you♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayjude777 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I once got grounded for the weekend but went out Friday night, it not technically being the weekend. The final decision was the punishment had been ambiguous, so I ended up haveing the grounding postponed until the next Friday night through Sunday bedtime. That meant I had to stay in my room, read my books, listen to my stereo, and watch my TV. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Workweek and weekend is ambiguous on this, which makes sense as it is really a matter of opinion and varies across and within cultures. I would hazard a guess that most North Americans would say the weekend starts Friday night - if I make plans to go away "for the weekend", I usually depart after work on Friday, not first thing Saturday. But if you asked me which days of the week are the weekend, I wouldn't say that Friday was one of them. - Eron^Talk 19:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR warning. I agree with Eron that most North Americans consider when they get off work on Friday evening to be the beginning of their weekend. This is also used in a similar fashion by those who work a non-traditional work schedule such as myself. Wednesday morning is the end of my work rotations. I and many people who I work with will answer "It's Friday!" to the question of "How's it going?" on a Wednesday morning. Furthermore, they'll refer to the days we have off (Wednesday through either Saturday or Sunday depending on our schedule that week) as "our weekend". I've also heard this from other non-traditional work schedule people such as those who work as paramedics, nurses, police officers, etc. So, while there's a technical definition of weekend days, there is also a cultural/popular definition. And a Google search for the specific term "It's my weekend" tends to verify this. That said, for everyone, It's Five O'Clock Somewhere. Dismas|^(talk) 19:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well everyone of a certain age in the UK knows that at 5pm on Friday, "The Weekend Starts Here"! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us of a younger certain age know that "It's Friday, it's five to five... it's Crackerjack! CRACKERJACK!!!!!!!!!DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on the British TV theme but also providing us with a legal definition of the weekend when large amounts of money were at stake, London Weekend Television began broadcasting at 1900, later 1715, on Friday evening. Matt's talk 09:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my Ontario high school, most of the teachers didn't like (or didn't want to seem like they liked) working us hard on Fridays. Usually no new homework, but something to prepare for by Monday. So the weekend for the drinkers started on Thursday night and Saturday became the rest day. Sunday was sort of the day where school mattered out of school, like Friday was where regular life mattered in school. Buffer days, I guess.

The only job I had since with a regular shift was Monday-Thursday, so I guess I have to go with Thursday. Never had a Casual Friday, but I guess that's a bit of the same deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I grew to hate and dread casual Fridays. My second-last job was policy analysis/advice at a private health insurance fund, and that required lots of writing and thinking and discussion of minute detail and consideration of all manner of weird possibilities and scenarios. A quiet environment was essential for this activity. Mostly I got that, but on Fridays everyone was in their jeans or weekend clobber, and psychologically the weekend began at 8:30 am on Friday. Everyone was in what I call "party mode", in which the amount, speed and volume of conversation were all magnified. Most people seemed to be able to function normally in this environment, but not me, I would just get stressed out. This had a lot to do with why I left that job and went, after a self-imposed hiatus, to what became my final job prior to retirement (but the less said about that job, the better). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I always preferred causal Fridays... where everyone just made stuff happen all day... --Jayron32 02:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Ya, a crud fails. A scary flu aid? A racy AIDS flu? A daily fur sac? Dry us a facial! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

When I was posted from Cambridge (the real one) to our St Louis office for a few months in 1990, I accepted that I needed to start wearing a shirt and tie. But when they told me about dress-down Friday, I honestly thought they were winding me up, as it was a self-evidently daft idea. Having a dress code means that the management valued our appearance above our comfort, so on what possible grounds might they reverse that on an occasional day? --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a tacit admission by management that their imposed requirement of formal dress was arbitrary and capricious nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casual Friday is probably of enormous cultural significance. Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]