Language desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

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.

February 8

"Équitable et transparente"

This flyer (pdf) concerns a current referendum taking place in Switzerland. My question, though, is about the slogan "Équitable et transparente" at the foot of the first page of the flyer. The feminine form of "transparente" indicates that the word refers back to a feminine noun, but what noun is being referred to in the slogan? --Viennese Waltz 09:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RIE 3 is la troisième réforme de l’imposition des entreprises, so it could be réforme or possibly imposition (taxation). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 09:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Are both sentences right?

Mondays, I work at the office downtown where have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients.

Mondays, I work at the office downtown and have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients.

If not, why not?--Llaanngg (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd is good, but not 1st. At the very least, you need to add "I" after "where", but I would also add a comma before "where". Note that the 2nd sentence does have a slightly different meaning than the (corrected) first sentence, however. This is because the corrected 1st sentence explicitly says that it's at the downtown office where this opportunity occurs, while the 2nd sentence does not.StuRat (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the first and second are different and why, as Stu notes, the first is incorrect as written has to do with dependent clauses and independent clauses. Clauses that begin with conjunctions like "and..." and "but..." and which lack a subject of their own are dependent. Clauses that begin with words like "where" and "when" (the wh question words) are usually independent clauses and require a subject. --Jayron 32 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Jayron has the terminology backwards. In the second of the OP's examples ("I work ... and have...") the phrase "and have..." is not a dependent clause but rather is the second predicate in an independent clause that has a dual predicate. Clauses that start with "where" or "when" are dependent clauses that cannot stand alone. Loraof (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you read the articles I linked, I clearly linked the correct articles for the correct concepts. If those articles are wrong, you had better change the original articles, because Wikipedia is thus wrong. "I work at an office down town where I have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients" the "where I have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients" is an independent clause because, and I quote, "An independent clause (or main clause) is a clause that can stand by itself as a simple sentence. An independent clause contains a subject and a predicate and makes sense by itself." (verbatim from the article Independent clause). Since "I have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients" could be a stand alone sentence, it is an independent clause. If this were wrong, then it is imperative you fix the Wikipedia article because that would be bad to spread such misinformation. Likewise, the clause "...and have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients" is a dependent clause because, and I quote, it "cannot stand alone as a sentence." Direct quote from the article. I cannot use "have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients" because it lacks a subject. If the article titled Dependent clause is incorrect in that regard, please fix it as soon as possible so we can stop spreading misinformation. Also, cite your sources from linguistic authorities when you do so. --Jayron 32 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite... From http://www.myschoolhouse.com/courses/O/1/56.asp, which is linked as a reference in Independent clause:

"Dependent Clause - A dependent clause cannot stand alone as a sentence. Here is an example: when the cake is done baking This clause does not express a complete thought and cannot stand alone." (emphasis mine)

Both dependent and independent clauses have a subject and a predicate – the difference is whether they can stand alone as a sentence; so to take the OP's example, I have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients would be an independent clause, but where I have the opportunity to deal with corporate clients is a dependent clause. FlyingAce (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the first one is OK only if it's a reminder note written to yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're writing in a business tone, you should place the pronouns properly. You could write an informal comment like "Went to main office today" but you wouldn't say that in a memo, you'd include "I" and "the". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The added "I" is absolutely required in US (business) English, but I am unsure of UK English, etc. A note to yourself might look more like "Mondays -> downtown office: corporate clients." StuRat (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the added "I" is also needed in British English, and we would also probably write "On Mondays, ..." or "Each Monday ..." in a formal sentence.

And "downtown" is not used in British English (but would be understood) - "in the town centre" is a typical alternative. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the title should be "Are both sentences right ?". Note the plural. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"All your base are belong to us" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean surnames

The subject matter of Jang (Korean surname) is written the same in hangul but four different ways in hanja (i.e. if looking at hanja they would be four different surnames). The article presents this subject matter as a single surname, that was "formerly" four surnames. I am curious as to whether this is correct in terms of social identity in comtemporary Korea, i.e. if one Korean person comes from a clan surnamed "張" and another comes from a clan surnamed "蔣", would they regard themselves having the same surname, or different surnames? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are regarded as different surnames, like the American surnames Lee, Li, Leigh, Leighe, Lea, Leagh, and Leye. In addition, one hanja surname can be divided into multiple clans. For example, Koreans with the surname 張 are divided into ten clans of various origins. —Stephen (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]