Language desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

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.

June 3

Japanese "tei!"

What does "ていっ" mean, in the context of a battle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.94.21.194 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interjection that you use when attacking. As far as I know it's just a cry, not derived from any particular word or phrase, but I'm not sure. I searched several online Japanese dictionaries but none of them have it. Google is basically useless since most hits are for phrases that happen to have ていっ in the middle. Bing gives much better results, but I still didn't find any useful discussion. -- BenRG (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Kiai is relevant here. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is. I don't know anything about martial arts. -- BenRG (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Chotjewitz in need of German help

Help! David Chotjewitz is a German novelist, who has written at least one book that has done quite well in English translation but our article on him says he became a "publisher", after dropping out of high school, I think, (perhaps we mean printer?)if you know German can you take a look at the sources, and fix up whatever you can. Thanks!

No, the German article says he was a Verlagsbuchhändler, which means publisher not printer. --Viennese Waltz 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? So, English speakers might understand it? Is there a more natural way to say whatever he was in English? (Like what did he do as a high-school drop out publisher (editor?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ver- "for-" or "out" lag- "lay" bookhandler. That is someone whose business with books is to put them forth, i.e., a "publisher". (I'll mention that German publishing companies, like Springer Verlag, just use the shorter term, Verlag. :::There's an episode of Keeping up Appearances where Onslow is reading Springer Verlag's Chaos and Frctals in bed, which shocked me, as I had been given the same book as a birthday present when it was first printed.) μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting that. So, can someone explain what he did, actually? Like, in English. He obviously was not Springer or Der Spiegel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what he did. According to the Friedrich-Bödecker-Kreis's website, he had trained as a Verlagsbuchhändler in order to later become independent/self-employed as a writer and translator. Part of his apprenticeship/training was done at Rowohlt, and their jobs website lists it among a variety of jobs, and explains that, in 2010, the training program for Verlagsbuchhändler had been replaced by the one for Medienkaufmann/-kauffrau Digital und Print. The current program looks like it gives trainees a comprehensive and non-specialized run through all the sectors and departments that compose the publishing trade. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) has an occupational profile in English for "Medienkaufmann/-kauffrau Digital und Print" which it translates as "Media agent for digital and print media (m/f)". ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so it's a formal training program run by the publishing house. That's a helpful English summary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the opening sentence of a question

Being spring it is time for teacher interviews again. One of the questions we have starts "School team have a variety of roles within in the school." This seems to me to be strangely worded. The school principal disagrees. Is it fine as is or should it be reworded? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"team" should be plural and the "in" is extraneous. Other than that, it's OK, although I might say "serve roles" versus "have roles". (But maybe they are interchangeable, since, if I "serve rolls", then we will "have rolls" with dinner.) StuRat (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is the language skills of the principal (or perhaps language skill within of the principal). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Should have said that there is only the one school team. Anyway, should the sentence not start with "The"? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. "The school team has a variety ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... but it's probably the members of the team that have the roles, and so the sentence should say this: "The members of the school team have a variety of roles within the school." Alternatively, if the team itself as a group has these roles then the above advice to keep the singular "has" will be correct. Dbfirs 11:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, if different members of the team have different roles, then it is also true to say that the team has a variety of roles. It's also a question of how finely the roles are specified. If it's not untrue to say that the job of a team leader is to "lead the team", that doesn't mean that the job can't be broken down into any number of particular tasks, or sub-roles, or roles. Sorry for the quadruple negative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only possible, but certain, that the members of a team have different roles, such as student, outside the team, or offence and defence, within the team. That does not mean the team has different roles. They may do nothing more than compete in their sport, which would be a single role, or they might also perform other roles, like holding charity events. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I think the extra "in" was a typo on my part. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related the Br/Am split over how to talk about e.g. companies? In American Eng we say "Microsoft is a doing X" but in Br Eng they say "Microsoft are doing X." See Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Formal_and_notional_agreement. I don't know which is more common in Canada but that might be part of the confusion over whether a "the" or "members of" is required. I'd say no "the" is required if the name of the group is "school team". Otherwise "the school team" or "school team members" or similar would be a vast improvement IMO. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Context has a lot to do with it. A Briton would say "Microsoft is quoted on the NASDAQ market", but "Microsoft is bringing out a new browser" and "Microsoft are bringing out a new browser" are equally valid constructions. 151.224.133.26 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maori(?) addendum of The Lone Ranger intro

The intro text of Quantum Jump's 70s hit The Lone Ranger is basically the Maori mountain Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu - but only 3/4 of it, then there is another line:

Taumata-whaka-tangi-hanga-kuayuwo

tamate-aturi-pukaku-piki-maunga

horonuku-pokaiawhen-uaka-tana-tahu

mataku-atanganu-akawa-miki-tora

What does this mean? Does it mean anything, or is it merely gibberish? --KnightMove (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User mi includes User:Tarzipan and User:Funauckland and User:Victoriaclark86.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have asked User:Axciom, the others have been inactive for a long time. --KnightMove (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is about 75% gibberish. The two words that are not would be "mataku", a verb to fear, and "tora", an adjective meaning to be ablaze. The rest of the words could be proper nouns that have not been capatilised because the whole word is a proper noun and thus requires no extra capitalisation, and appear in the-form-you-see-them to agree with the hyphenated form of the rest of the word. I'm sorry I can't tell you what the other words mean, I'd assume they're names. Perhaps feedback from other speakers? Axciom (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Axciom: Can't help, but it seems to me that line 3 should be:

horonuku-pokaia-whenua-katana-tahu - Akld guy (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odds

Which is correct, "70% is good odds" or "70% are good odds"? ScienceApe (talk)

It might depend. "With your CV, you've got a 70% chance of getting that job, and 70% is good odds in this market". That's the usual way.

But "At the races today, 30% of the horses I wanted to bet on were unbackable odds-on favourites, but 70% were good odds". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's straightforward: "70% is good odds"...."70% and 80% are good odds."68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if you want to talk about "odds" you should be saying "7 to 3 in favor", not "70%". If you express it as a percentage or a pure number ("70%" or "0.7") then it's correctly called a probability or, in non-technical speech, a "chance" or a "likelihood". But in practice many people do not make this distinction. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is this:

70% is twice 35%

70% of the cake is inedible

70% of the cakes are inedible

In bookmaking parlance, "in favour" is odds - on, as noted above. There's a misconception about backing odds on favourites - the lower the price the less money the bookie makes - that's why they make a killing when a rank outsider comes in and lose millions when there's a run of favourites. At some point the percentage turns in favour of the backer, but you need nerves of steel to put down twenty thousand pounds to win a grand. The odds against Brexit are about 5/2 I believe, so you could get maybe 1/4 on Remain - I wouldn't bet the house on it.

In the example cited, a seven pound bet would win three pounds, total return ten pounds. The corresponding tote dividend would be one pound 43 pence to a one pound stake. A bookmaker would not offer odds of 3/7, however. The nearest price would be 4/9, which means that if you bet seven pounds you would win three pounds 11 pence, for a total return of ten pounds 11 pence (before tax). 151.224.167.104 (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your confusing change of indentation. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Yet, it was reported that bookmakers suffered large financial losses due to Leicester's totally unpredicted Premier League title this year. --Theurgist (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [1] the bookies seem to have had things very much under control. I'd be interested to see the report which said they miscalculated. 151.224.132.45 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All this says is that the odds were being updated as the events unfolded. Nowhere does it say if the bookies made money or lost money from the eventual outcome. On the other hand, a quick Google search produces plenty of articles explaining how Leicester's title cost the bookies tens of millions of pounds – although, indeed, they seem to avoid mentioning if and how bets cast throughout the season on non-winning teams compensated that payout. --Theurgist (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]