Language desk
< October 31	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 2 >

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.

November 1

What does this German document say?

The article on crying says that a collation of different studies of crying show that men cry on average between 6 and 17 times a year and women 30 and 64 times a year. I'm curious as to what exactly this document says as I find it difficult to believe that men on average cry every month. The document is quite brief - http://www.dog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/PM-Weinen.pdf 2.102.187.79 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bis zum 13. Lebensjahr weinen Jungen und Mädchen etwa gleich häufig. Später ändert sich das Bild: Männer weinen 6- bis 17-mal pro Jahr, Frauen 30- bis 64-mal." Google translate gives "Up to the age of 13 boys and girls cry about the same number of times. Later the picture changes: men cry 6- to 17 times a year, women 30- to 64 times." They could be including teenage males in the category of "men," which would raise the average. It also depends on the population sample. If you choose from a population where even young boys are punished for crying, it'll be on the lower end (though possibly averaging out in secret). If you choose from a population where good boyfriends or husbands are expected to have some degree of emotion, it will be higher.

It's short enough that you can plug it into Google translate. It will require a touch of formatting. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The crying page claims the document collates several different studies to come to this conclusion but I've put the whole thing through translate and it doesn't seem to say how they came up with that number, unless the translate page isn't right. 2.102.187.79 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The document seems to be based on this article in Der Ophthalmologe. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to that, maybe you could try WP:REX or de:WP:BIB/A. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 04:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful adjectival adverbs

Hello, once again!

Some time ago, we discussed the rules concerning how one derives adverbs from English adjectives using the -ly suffix (and some exceptions thereof). Recently, though, I've begun double-checking said rules and found that they may not apply to adverbs formed from the names of colors. Permit me to elaborate.

Usually, the writer simply sticks the suffix on the end of the root word, without making any changes to the stem.

Root Adjective	Suffix	Derivative Adverb
close	-ly	closely
free	-ly	freely

Sometimes, however, he must change the stem—exceptions notwithstanding—when said root ends in the /i/ sound,

Root Adjective	Suffix	Derivative Adverb
happy	-ly	happily
eerie	-ly	eerily

the letters "ic" or "ical,"

Root Adjective	Suffix	Derivative Adverb
supersonic	-ly	supersonically
musical	-ly	musically

when it ends in "<consonant> + le".

Root Adjective	Suffix	Derivative Adverb
comfortable	-ly	comfortably
ample	-ly	amply

the letters "ay,"

Root Adjective	Suffix	Derivative Adverb
day	-ly	daily
gay	-ly	gaily

or the letters "ue" when prounounced /u/.

Root Adjective	Suffix	Derivative Adverb
true	-ly	truly

So far, so good, right?

But when it comes to names of colors, I find that it makes more sense to ignore all of the above rules, and simply never change the stem.

Root Adjective	Suffix	Derivative Adverb
blue	-ly	bluely
gray	-ly	grayly
lilac	-ly	lilacly
burgundy	-ly	burgundyly
purple	-ly	purplely

I mean, would any native speaker write bluly, graily, lilacally, burgundily, or purply?

Thank You. [EDIT—removed a repetition] Pine (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would any native speaker use any versions of these words? I can't imagine what meaning "burgundyly/burgundily", for example, could possibly have. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with the OP inviting us to speculate on the issue, and debate what predictions to make based on unattributed forms. For instance, Cordelia was much better treated Burgundily than she was Frankly or Albanically. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we restrict ourselves to meanings relating to colours, can you suggest an appropriate sentence? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on a web forum, not here. But perhaps other people feel freeer than I to speculate, debate, and predict. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples:

"Days faded grayly into nights, and nights brightened grayly into days."

"MacFife was bluely cold, ferret eyes red with fever."

"For an instant they stood there like statues, their faces masks of effort, veins beginning to stand out purpley on their temples."

"Electric bulbs burned lilacly in the chandeliers and on silver candelabra on the table, giving a half light that was very romantic and fascinating."

"His shaven head shone burgundyly in the firelight as he passed out the salt beef."

Pine (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good article discussing this topic. --Viennese Waltz 08:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One might be tempted to criticize the author for "anthropod", but at least they didn't use "insect". Tevildo (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker, I would rarely use the adverbial form of any colour - with the exception of black (as I might well look blackly on those who mess up my language), though black has meanings beyond simple colour. While other -ly forms are not incorrect, it would usually sound better to find another way to express the idea - especially as in many cases the colour noun can be used adverbially. Cheeks need not glow pinkly, nor the fire burn redly: they can simply glow pink and burn red. Should I ever feel a need to turn burgundy into an adverb, I would probably insert a hyphen to show that I didn't seriously think it was a good word - so burgundy-ly. Wymspen (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more native English speaker OR - if I heard any of these, I would assume the speaker was being poetic. Of the examples given, I would go with the standard form for "bluely", and the otherwise grammatically correct form for "purply" and "burgundily". "Grayly/Graily" sounds perfectly fine to my ear, but looks wrong however I write it (although wiktionary has the former as correct, as does my spellchecker). Lilacly/Lilacally just seems wrong both spoken and written. MChesterMC (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary also has greyly for those using the British spelling and bluely. Never heard of either. Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Greyly" occurs in Endymion (poem):

“

Bay leaves were crackling in the fragrant pile

And gummy frankincense was sparkling bright
'Neath smothering parsley, and a hazy light
Spread greyly eastward

”

— John Keats, 1818

but I must admit I had to look it up. Perhaps the quotation should be added to the Wiktionary page? Tevildo (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just colours that are special in this respect: from the adjective gay, you get both gaily and gayly, for the two distinct meanings. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Tolkien wrote regarding "dwarfs" versus "dwarves" that seldom-used forms tend to follow regular pattern. We seldom write of two or more members of the dwarf race anymore. If we did, we would probably call them "dwarves" (using an irregular plural, but one which has a historical basis, see "wolves" which we do refer to relatively often). But since we don't, it is commonly "dwarfs". I think he had arguments with his copy editor over this, or something -- he wanted to (and did) write as if it was a common word, for literary purposes. Ditto "elfin" versus "elven".

Technically, Tolkien wrote that the real historical plural of "dwarf" ought to be "dwarrows" (hence Dwarrowdelf, a name for Moria). He wrote of "dwarves": 'I am afraid it is just a piece of private bad grammar, rather shocking in a philologist; but I shall have to go on with it.' Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable rule. Use the regular formation for adverbs and adjectives when its an very unusual word -- the regular formation being being to not change the stem. Herostratus (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get a bit of actual data here. According to the Google Ngram Viewer the OPs intuition holds for bluely (bluly is so rare there's no data) and greyly/grayly, but not for purplely (purply is the only accepted spelling). Smurrayinchester 10:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's just a tiny bit unfair. :)

In English—at least in informal settings—one may use the "-y" suffix to make an adjective (not an adverb) from a noun. e.g. `buttery,` `ketchupy,` `plasticky.`

Thank you, though, for contributing the Ngram-Viewer data, Smurrayinchester, it actually does help me in this case!

By using said viewer, one can clearly see how In the last hundred years the noun-to-adjective derivation has proliferated, whereas the adjective-to-adverb one has not.

I mean, am I the only one here who's sick of hearing people say "drive careful!"?

:P

Pine (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Recognizing parts of Japanese names

I'm aware that Japanese names have the surname first and the given name second, so that 安倍晋三 reads Abe Shinzō and not Shinzō Abe. Is there a way I can recognize which part is the surname and which is the given name? What I'm looking for is a generally applicable method, not just an answer which is which in the particular example. --NeverStåpLearning (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until somebody who knows what they're talking about comes along, How do Japanese names work? may or may not help. Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way to recognize written Japanese surnames versus given names without knowing the names and their spellings. Surnames are usually two kanji characters, but may consist of one to five characters. Likewise, given names are usually two kanji characters, but may be from one to five characters. Names are usually in kanji characters, but may be in hiragana or katakana, or a mixture. Japanese names are abundant and varied. I think I remember that there are over 100,000 different Japanese surnames. If you're a native Japanese, and another Japanese introduces himself and says his name, you will not know how to write it unless he shows you. The same name could be written in numerous ways, and a given name written in kanji could have many pronunciations. It might be possible to write a software program that could read Japanese names reasonably well, and show you the surname and given name, but there are no simple rules that you could put to use. —Stephen (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what if I do know the names? Say, I've seen on Wikipedia that Abe Shinzō is written 安倍晋三 and I want to find out if it's 安 vs 倍晋三 or 安倍 vs 晋三 or 安倍晋 vs 三. --NeverStåpLearning (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is going to sound crazy, but you can look up those characters on the English Wiktionary: wikt:安, wikt:倍, wikt:晋, wikt:三. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can check on Wiktionary. You can use Google Translate. Other than that, remember that in Chinese, one hanzi is almost always one syllable, but in Japanese, a single kanji can have up to five syllables (as 志, kokorozashi). Sometimes a name includes elements that are not written at all (such as の, no). —Stephen (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very helpful. I noticed right now that in the Japanese Wikipedia, spaces are actually used in the articles' leading sentences to separate the parts of the names, although there are no spaces in the article titles, and also the names are "transcribed" into one of the kana scripts immediately after they're first mentioned. So the title is 安倍晋三 but the article begins thus: 安倍晋三（あべしんぞう、1954年（昭和29年）9月21日 - ）は、日本の政治家。自由民主党所属の衆議院議員（8期）、第96・97代内閣総理大臣（再登板）、第25代自由民主党総裁（同）。

That kana is the hiragana, right? And I think I'm also seeing the other kana (the katakana?) in the infobox of ja:岡崎慎司. Why are both kanas there in the article if either of them would do the job unambiguously? And in general, which kana is more usual when it comes to indicating the pronunciations of native (not foreign) names, and how often are they used for this purpose? --NeverStåpLearning (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, あべしんぞう is hiragana. Most names are usually written in kanji, but there are some people who use hiragana or katakana for it. Katakana is often used like we use italics: foreign words, technical words, etc. In the info box, there is some katakana. For example, VfBシュトゥットガルト, which is German: Verein für Bewegungsspiele, Stuttgart.

愛称：ザキオカ、岡ちゃん、ドッペルシンジ、オカ

カタカナ：オカザキシンジ

ラテン文字： Okazaki Shinji

Nicknames: Zakioka, Oka-chan, Doppel Shinji, Oka

Katakana: Okazaki Shinji

Latin letters: Okazaki Shinji —Stephen (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]