Language desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

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 4

English term for the Japanese "walk rally"?

ウォークラリー (uōkurari, "walk rally") is a wasei-eigo term for a type of recreational outdoor activity similar to orienteering where participants (usually children) are given clues directing them to checkpoints, where they might have to perform certain tasks (e.g. looking for clues or playing games) in order to identify the next checkpoint, and so on. The term "walk rally" has also found common usage in Thailand. What would one call such an activity in English? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that a Treasure hunt - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scavenger hunt. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The_Amazing_Race 196.213.35.146 (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I also had The Amazing Race in mind when I asked. Is there a general term that easily describes the format of the race? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either orienteering or scavenger hunt works. A scavenger hunt usually involves "running around and finding clues". --Jayron 32 17:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "scavenger hunt" and "treasure hunt" is explained here. The OP's description sounds more like a treasure hunt to me. 109.151.63.210 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how they say they create "treasure hunts (not scavenger hunts). Semantics do matter!" - right under a banner proclaiming they've been "Solving the Puzzles of Teamwork with Corporate Team Building Scavenger Hunts Since 1995" - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of that in non-restrictive relative clauses with human antecedents

I learned at school (English as a secondary language) that that must not be used as the relative pronoun in any non-restrictive relative clauses. English relative clauses#Overview, bullet 4, supports this rule. However, Relative_clause#English, bullet 2, restricts this rule to non-human antecedents. According to the latter, a sentence such as My brother, that is 30 years old, married is correct. Is this true? --BlackEyedLion (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading "Relative_clause#English, bullet 2" as restricting the rule to "non-human antecedents". The problem may be that the first bulleted point (which discusses clauses with human antecedents) uses only restrictive clauses as examples. Basically, a restrictive clause referring to a person may begin with who, whom, or that, but a nonrestrictive one begins only with who or whom. "My brother, that is 30 years old, . . ." is not something that an educated native speaker would say or write. Deor (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "My brother, that is 30 years old, . . ." is ungrammatical. The grammatical version of that would be "My brother, who is 30 years old, . . .". Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, no educated native speaker would say a sentence like "My house, that is 30 years old..." In this context, which would be the preferred term. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: in your specific example, it's often more usual to say My brother, who is 30 years old, got married. Omitting got suggests to the listener that the next word will be the name of the person he married (as in …married X.). Bazza (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My brother, that is 30 years old" is wrong because the clause is non-restrictive, not because the antecedent is human. "The priest that married my brother lives in London" (restrictive clause with human antecedent) would be correct. "My brother, which is 30 years old" is an example of an incorrect non-restrictive clause with a human antecedent. Tevildo (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would never be happy with "The priest that married my brother ...". I would always say "The priest who married my brother ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Fowler described it as "apt to sound archaic" in 1905, but it's not (yet) actively incorrect: "This is the priest all shaven and shorn, that married the man all tattered and torn, that kissed the maiden all folorn..." I agree that "who" is generally better in this sort of sentence. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THere are two issues. If I had two houses, each almost thirty yers old, I could very naturally say "My house that is 29 years old was destroyed by Sandy, but my haouse that is 30 years old survived it." The other question in American Enlish is, that once you set the description off by a comma, you cannot use "that". "My house, that is 30 years old, was seized by the Obama regime" is simply unacceptable. It would have to be, "My house, which is 30 years old, was seized by the Obama regime." On its own, that's all that's acceptable. In a broader concept or in less couth lands the rules may differ. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is wholly acceptable that the Obama regime seizes your house? No such user (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, only if there were a federal warrant or court order might it be wholly acceptable that the Obama administration seize your house. It is never acceptable that a regime act unilaterally, or without a valid subjunction. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic rule of avoiding same word twice in a paragraph

English has a stylistic rule that one should avoid using the same lexical term (a noun, verb, adjective or adverb) twice in the same paragraph if possible. (Ayn Rand mentions this rule in her Art of Nonfiction and advises one to break it if necessary, in case there are those who doubt the policy's existence.)

Two Questions: (1) What is this rule called; do we have and article on it?

And (2), is this rule applied in other languages, what are some examples or articles or sources if so?

Thanks, μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a name for it, but in Japanese it is perfectly OK to mention the same noun twice or more in a single sentence, for example when writing out a patent or some other highly detailed descriptive document. When translating, I would usually write 'The [object] is used [as such], and said [object] can perform certain functions, one of which functions is [whatever]'. Of course, patents need to be highly detailed, so as not to be legally challenged. In fictional literature, it doesn't really matter, because if someone buys the book, you get your money anyway. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See "Elegant variation".—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, while I have his book open, says: "But there are some writers who, from the fact that all good repetition is intentional, rashly infer that all intentional repetition is good; and others who may be suspected of making repetitions from negligence, and retaining them from a misty idea that to be aware of a thing is to have intended it." His term for the phenomenon is "rhetorical repetition" - we have an article Repetition (rhetorical device), although it's not much more than a list of specific Greek terms for types of repetition. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is certainly applied in Norwegian, see (original), (google translation). Some of the tedious repetitions have been ~~lost~~ rather clumsily modified in the google translation. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We see it used to the max in consolidated sports results: A beat B; C was too good for D; E thrashed F; G overpowered H; J was victorious over K; L had a narrow win over M; N scraped home over P; and Q came out the winners over R. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminological variation can be a hindrance in STEM fields.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read once that schoolchildren in [some country] are drilled in lists of epithets for [their country]'s eminent historic figures so that they can follow that rule to the hilt. —Tamfang (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is to avoid the phenomenon of semantic satiation. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Elegant Variation is indeed the phrase I was looking for. It was mentioned to us as a suggestion in 10th grade that we not use the same word over and over when avoidable or unnecessary. (That year we focused on creative writing.) Now, Norwegian Blue, if only I knew how to read Norwegish! Thanks IP 50, I have noticed that phenomenon too. Not what I was looking for, but it does happen. I especially find if you say adverbs repeatedly, e.g., "very" that after the fifth time or so you start wondering why it doesn't mean something else, like "a good place to fish in the mountains." And yes, Tevildo, and Wavelength. I recognize that sometimes repetition has its specific purpose and its own aesthetic value. Assonance and alliteration are my two favorite compositional devices. Thanks, everyone. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are some standard textbooks used in linguistics degrees at college?

What are some standard textbooks used in linguistics degrees at colleges? I have interest in universities of any country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in "Introduction to Linguistics 101" classes, or by students actually pursuing a degree in linguistics? AnonMoos (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of both would be nice. But i am afraid the latter would be too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, this is your forte. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 14 Adar 5775 03:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some post-2000 introductory books that I happen to have on my shelves are "Language Files 9" by OSU Ling. Dept. (ISBN 0-8142-5128-5), "An Introduction to Language" by Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams (ISBN 1-4130-2951-5), and "Contemporary Linguistics" O'Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, and Rees-Miller (ISBN 0-312-41396-8 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask here. This is the university I went to. There are email addresses on this page to contact the faculty members. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As AnonMoos has mentioned, Fromkin and Rodman is the standard introductory text for majors If there's som other specific interest, like Indo-European languages or a survey of world languages there are other basic texts, but the subject is hugely diverse.. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]