Language desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 4

Giyse

I'm still working on Mei Quong Tart. This question is about the reference to the "Loong Shan Tea Giyse". Googling finds some other sources that call this establishment by the same name. On the other hand, googling "Giyse" alone shows that Google thinks "Giyse" is a typo for "House", which seems plausible in context. Is "Giyse" a real word - either English or a loan word that would have been common at the turn of the 20th century - or is it a typo that's just been replicated by different sources? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(If it helps, other sources refer to the same establishment variously as "Loong Shan Tea House" and "Loong Shan Tea Rooms", including this contemporary source. This and this are apparently photos of it, but unfortunately do not show a sign with "Loong Shan Tea anything".) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giyse does not appear in the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary, nor in the 1972 Supplement. I think that's pretty good evidence that there was no such word in use in English at the turn of the 20th century. Of course that doesn't prove anything about the name of the establishment; they can call it anything they want, even if it's not an English word. But my money would be on it being a typo. ("giyse" is of course what you get if you type "house" on a qwerty keyboard with your right hand shifted left by one key.) CodeTalker (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not in the OED Online (which is the full OED with updates), or wiktionary, or my old Random House Unabridged, or any of the dictionaries searched by onelook.com. I think it's safe at this point to assume it was a typo as explained above. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, I'm convinced it's a typo. Will change it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comma question

What is wrong with these commas? †Dismas†|^(talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's because the commas separate the noun from its modifiers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The construction is an appositive. Our article says that non-restrictive appositives are set off by commas, while restrictive appositives are not. Whether an appositive is restrictive or not can be somewhat subjective. In the referenced text, the first case (Michael Dorn) is clearly restrictive, so should not take commas. The second one is less clear-cut and is probably ok with the commas. CodeTalker (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly agree with CodeTalker's interpretation. Deor (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the majority opinion and add: the phrase "with costar, Michael Dorn," would be less bad if costar had an article or the like: "with her costar, Michael Dorn". —Tamfang (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. †Dismas†|^(talk) 11:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved