Language desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

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 23

From, of, out of

Hey, may I just ask you for a little help? I am (as a non-native speaker) trying to write something in English like "10 from 15 points were reached". Do you say "from"? Or "10 of 15"? Or "10 out of 15"? It would be very great if somebody helped me :) --78.42.138.174 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could say either "10 of 15" or "10 out of 15". Both are perfectly understandable English. --Jayron 32 01:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find "10 out of 15" to be preferable, or even "10 out of a possible 15". StuRat (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, points are not usually "reached". Most often they are "scored". With more context we would know the correct verb for this case. It is also possible to say things like "scored 10 out of 15" without "points". --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree. Points are indeed "reached". Points are "accumulated". Points are "aggregated". Points are "earned". Points are "obtained". So, "reached" may be entirely appropriate. As the above editor said, we need context to provide a better answer to your question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example: "If you reach 80 points, you are eligible for a free meal." Another example: "The candidate who reaches 100 points first will win the election." So, points can be "reached" in certain contexts. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "reached" is possible in that sort of example. But I said "not usually", not "not"; and, anyway, in that sort of example you are unlikely to say "points out of 15". --69.159.61.172 (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Which is why I said that I somewhat disagree, as opposed to me totally disagreeing. And both of my examples could easily accommodate the "points out of 15" preposition. "If you reach 80 out of 100 points, you are eligible for a free meal." "The candidate who reaches 100 out of 200 points first will win the election." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But to clarify to OP...DON'T use "10 from 15"...this would be wrong...the other two are good..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context? Do you meant points as in scores, or points as in locations? Everyone else seems to be assuming you man scores, but if you are talking about "reaching" a certain number of points, that would make me think you are talking about being able to visit a certain number of locations. Iapetus (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct way to place a number in an alphabetical list?

What is the correct way to place a number in an alphabetical list? Specifically, I am referring to the film title 7th Heaven. Is that placed before the "A" letter entries, due to the number "7" as the first character in the title? Or do we place it with the "S" letter entries, as if the word "Seventh" were spelled out? Or is it a matter of discretion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers come first.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

06:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know that numbers come first. But that wasn't my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From an editor of printed matter's point of view (like books, magazines, etc.), both methods are admissible. But all numbers and punctuation marks (e.g. !, ?, etc.) come first here on Wikipedia's categories and all alphabetical lists, as a universal Wiki style. Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What's the Wikipedia policy on that? I can't find anything. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GLOSSARIES#Alphabetize has this rule for glossaries, but I've not found a MOS article on alphabetization in general. Tevildo (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I did not find that too. As far as I am aware, it is just an experiential (and may be unwritten) style. :) Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way category entries are ordered. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's sort of documented at Help:Category#Sort_order, but only superficially, and some reading between lines is required. No such user (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, the question was not specifically about Wiki, and in general one could choose to put numbers after Z rather than before A (this is my private preference). In some contexts, it may also be appropriate to sort numbers as if they were spelled out, or spelled-out numbers as if they were written in numerals. For ex, where you have a list of titles containing cardinal and/or ordinal numbers, some of which are spelled out ("The Fifth Protocol") and others not ("The 5th Dimension"), and you wanted the list in numerical order as the main sort key, and alphabetic secondary. To make such a list work, you'd have to mentally re-spell "The Fifth Protocol" as "The 5th Protocol", and sort it accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As do Wikipedia categories (for example, see how the symphonies in Category:Compositions in C major are sorted). They treat everything as text strings reading left to right, whereas numbers are better sorted from low value to high value, which means, for starters, that fewer digits come before more digits. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So let's stick with Wikipedia. Should 7th Heaven be alphabetized as if it were "7th" with a "7" ... or as if it were "Seventh" with an "S" ... or is it my discretion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, 1-9 (including 1st, 11th, .... 9th, 91st ...) all come before A-Z. So, 7th Heaven is in the numerical part up front, while Seventh Heaven would be in the S's. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article List of films: S#Se-Sg probably needs some work here - it starts with The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Se7en, and The Sea (in that order), but 7th Heaven (1927 film) is listed with Seventh Heaven (1937 film) and Seventh Heaven (1993 film) between The Seventh Cross and The Seventh Seal. Tevildo (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Alphabetical order.—Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My PC (Windows 7) sorts numbers by their value (in folder names, at least), hence 12 comes before 112, and 1.2 comes before 12. If you put a couple of th's in, the order is 1.2, 12, 12th, 112 and 112th. As to putting letters first or numbers, EBCDIC has lower case, upper case and then numbers. ASCII has numbers first, then upper case, then lower case - basically the opposite approach of EBDIC. In either system, the space character comes ahead of the numbers and letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, Leonard Maltin's annual movie guide alphabetizes anything with a "7" in it as though it were spelled out. Presumably there's a hidden sort column in his database which specifies exactly how to sort it - similar to the way Wikipedia can handle items in a category's list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong tense. It should be "alphabetized", etc., because the issue of Maltin's guidebook dated 2015 was the last one. :-( --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does his online version alphabetize the same way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this grammar error?

For these two sentences:

"Chocolate is bad for you - it makes you fat and your teeth fall out"

"Chocolate is bad for you - it makes you fat and makes your teeth fall out"

Why is the first one wrong and the second one right? The verb "makes" is the same for both. 212.105.160.248 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the first one is wrong? The "makes" would be understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The first one is not "wrong". It may not be ideal or preferable. But it's definitely not incorrect ("wrong"). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the second is better..the first creates an ambiguity as to why your teeth fall out...they fall out either due to the chocolate or due to being fat in that first sentence....ie first you get fat and then because you're fat your teeth fall out....68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP's confusion may be because "fat" is an adjective and "fall" is a verb. Compare:

It makes you fat and your teeth rotten. (Both adjectives)
It makes you gain weight and your teeth fall out. (Both verbs)

Zeugma is probably our most relevant article. Tevildo (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is a lack of parallelism (grammar), which is generally frowned on. Either of Tevildo's two bulleted revisions would be a more elegant way of saying the same thing. Deor (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deor. Parallelism is what I was looking for. 212.105.160.248 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way off topic

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

Actually, a certain amount of chocolate is good for you. Its the sugar contained in it that's bad for you.--178.111.96.35 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The saturated fat and (hopefully gone now) trans fat wasn't exactly healthy, either. StuRat (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anacoluthon? --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]