Language desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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 2

An error?

I'm the co-owner of a small business, that sells replacement parts for brass instruments. We are currently in the process of getting a new homepage for costumers from overseas. We hired translators on an internet marketplace and we can't really tell if they are useful. We were warned that there are scammers which will just put a text through Google Translate so we want to make sure that the people we hire actually speak both English and the language that they are supposed to translate our text to. One of them writes in their application: "I am a native German speaker. I have been working as a translator and writer since 2012. As a translator, I specialize in academic literature. As a writer, I have written product descriptions for webshops as well as contributions for magazines and papers." If this guy made an error on his application, we would get someone to check the text he translated but we have to pay him tomorrow. --EdthaysIII78 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether there are any errors in the English text "I am a native German speaker ..."? If so, the answer is no. 86.152.161.28 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no errors in the quoted text from the applicant. Btw, did you mean "costumers", or "customers"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German comments on film editing

[1] This is the post-Oscar press availability for Citizenfour, a movie that was edited in Germany to avoid interference by the US Government. At 2:19 in the video, a German reporter asks about this and co-producer Dirk Wilutzky answers in German. Could someone summarize what he says? Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quick summary of what he says.

"It was necessary to edit the film in Germany because of the favorable laws that better protect journalists and documentary filmmakers than it is the case in the USA for excample. For us in Germany, it is a beautiful thing to see this film awarded with an Oscar, of course. The film is in 70 movie theaters in Germany now and will open in even more soon, hopefully. Also, we have the film starting in 30-40 more countries very soon. So getting this recognition here is a big thing, and we are grateful for it."134.100.145.200 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the preferred form of the abbreviation "with respect to"?

I have seen many forms used on the web:

I am writing wrt. your application...
I am writing wrt your application...
I am writing w.r.t. your application...
I am writing WRT your application...
I am writing WRT. your application...
I am writing W.R.T your application...

The first form is similar to the way I would use "etc." having being taught this at school some decades ago. On the other hand the fourth (WRT) is similar to the way I would use technical and organisational abbreviations (as in "The BBC provides content and my ISP delivers it"), which makes me think that this might be the modern way of punctuation. So my questions are: are any of the above incorrect? Of the correct options which are the preferred? Does the preference change between traditional, modern, formal, or informal contexts? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third are both acceptable, although I have a preference for the third. The others are incorrect. But if (as it seems) this is in the context of an employer writing to a job applicant, the employer should not use the abbreviation at all, not even in an email. He/she should write the phrase out in full. By the way, it could also stand for "with regard to". --Viennese Waltz 10:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third is fine provided you leave extra space between sentences. The old typewriter style was to leave two spaces after a period when it ends a sentence, but only one when it indicated an abbreviation. With proportional fonts greater subtlety is possible (you can leave a "wide space" or a regular space plus a "thin space"). TeX handles this well.

Unfortunately the recent trend is to leave no extra space at all between sentences. This is obviously a sign of grave moral decay, and you kids get off my lawn. But here we see one of the real problems with it, which is that it makes the reader do extra work to decide whether a sentence has finished, especially if abbreviations with periods are used. --Trovatore (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Wiktionary gives WRT as primary, with w.r.t., w/r/t, and wrt as alternatives. The Chicago Manual of Style website has this page (PDF format) showing only wrt for use in "informal notation". So, like many things regarding usage, there does not appear to be a large degree of consensus. I personally would never capitalize this outside of an Internet shorthand context, like FWIW and BTW and LOL. Your examples appear to be part of a formal letter, which would suggest spelling it out. (BTW, it's not similar to etc., since etc. is not an initialism but rather a combined abbreviation of two Latin words. Thus, examples 1 and 5 would never be correct.) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldn't re be appropriate? The meaning is the same. Mingmingla (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an informal context "re" is okay (though you'll confuse a lot of people who wrongly think that even in the middle of a sentence it needs to be followed by a colon, the way it would be in the heading of a memo or email). But as soon as you say "I am writing", you're establishing a more formal style. Which means that neither "re" nor any version of "wrt" is appropriate. It needs to be written out in full. In an informal style you might just say "Re your application" without other words. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding or in re (which is the actual Latin phrase, and not an abbreviation) are short formal correct alternatives. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OED has an entry for "w.r.t.", and personally I have often seen it in that, and in the "wrt" form, and never in any of the other forms you listed (am tempted to add a ^{[citation needed]} tag for the wikitionary entry). Incidentally, as the OED examples attest, the abbreviation is very commonly used in mathematical/technical writing and is often not regarded as informal in those contexts. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar of "Do you think me handsome?"

The sentence sounds wrong. A reply would be I do not think you [are] handsome. However, what dialect in England would allow such sentence construction and omit the are? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is elided in the question, it's an infinitive -- "Do you think me to be handsome?" See Accusative and infinitive and Small clause... AnonMoos (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope used the "I think him <adjective>" construction, so I assume it was common parlance back then. But it sounds very dated now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very old-fashioned sounding. Yet "Do you find me handsome" would still work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the North of England, and it has never been a question that I have had to ask to a lady, as it was perfectly obvious that I am handsome without ever having to ask, but I would agree that it is archaic. The reply given by User:66 would appear erroneous without the 'are'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M'yes, many people in the States would probably consider that something (notice I left out to be) something from Shakespearean Early Modern English. So it would sound weird in serious discussion, but be perfectly acceptable in humourous use. Though I still dispute Kage-senpai's first point as even though he claims not to be a Scouser (except when scousing is required), and the accent would work on just about anyone outside of Britain, I do not know about women in London as they would be terrified meeting someone from the icey North (where temperature have been known to reach an incredible 0° C!) and this may be the reason for not posing the question. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Adar 5775 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, a scouse accent gets any girl's juices flowing. Werks evry taaime, lar! :) Anyway, I don't claim not to be a scouser. I am one. I just don't speak like one. I left the city at age 18. Do you know why? It's because I found the train station. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember this train station well. For a mere 25 GBP a body could go all the way to Euston riding first class on the Virgin train provided they took the 05:00 one (coach was 75 for some reason). Also, this post made me laugh so hard. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Adar 5775 17:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit dated, but I wouldn't bat an eye if it were to be used. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty impossible anyway. Eye lids are battable, eyes themselves not so much. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not when I'm around, mate :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit. I use this construction myself (though not often) and certainly wouldn't bat an eyelid were someone else to use it. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

AnonMoos answered this in the first response, the rest is dross. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind not speaking ill of people's good faith contributions, please? We all have logs in our eyes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any failure to assume good faith. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I said. The contributions were made in good faith, but the description of them as "dross" was what was unwelcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So "off-topic" would have been acceptable? Just trying to clarify. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's right in that I could have left off the qualifier, or said "mere ornament" instead. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing judgment at all is not required. The OP will decide which responses are most useful or relevant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos did not answer the question, though - the so-called dross answerers did reply to "what dialect in England would allow such sentence construction". Rmhermen (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2015 (UT

The objection seems to be to my use of the word dross, and I do not objec. But either the hatting should be removed, or better, new comments when absolutely necessary, should go within the hat. Please hat this. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm fairly certain I'm not a fan of this whole conversation. So to calm all the silliness down I'm randomly going to put this picture of a curious kitten as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Adar 5775 23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]