Language desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 18

Some pages from China

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Rainbow Ruby earned something in China.... I thought I'd get relevant answers at the WikiProject China talk page, but I'll leave a link here, anyway. 58.123.222.52 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on the page you linked to. --165.225.80.125 (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Native writers

Is 'native writer' to writing, as 'native speaker' is to speaking? Or, would people normally think first on a Native American (or another Indigenous Americans) writer? --Llaanngg (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen this term? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Native writer, 2. Native writer .--Llaanngg (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what other people would normally think, but it wouldn't suggest any particular meaning of "native" to me. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why American specifically? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's just the concept that popped up in my mind. Native Australians are fine too. Llaanngg (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context, and on the presence or absence of capitalization of "Native/native" when it does not begin the sentence. Your first link uses "Native", and indeed the article is about an indigenous (Abenaki) writer (see that article's infobox).. Your second link uses "native", and from the context it about someone whose first language is English. Loraof (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be congruent with 'native speaker', but I wouldn't usually read it as such; I'd assume it was a speaker who has been identified as being 'native' in some way. "Writing natively" is clearer, but I can't say that I've seen that much either. People who learn a second language may become stronger in one form of communication over others and say things like "I read French, but don't speak it very well", but native speakers wouldn't use that construction: they're native speakers, period, and are assumed to be equally good at all forms unless specified. Matt Deres (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would see it as a writer of Aboriginal descent no matter where in the world they were from. Such as the people at Category:Inuit writers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Native" means a thing you're "born with". Obviously you're not born knowing a language, but you acquire it from those around you. You become a native speaker of that language. And assuming you learn to write, you're then a native writer. That doesn't mean you're necessarily a good speaker or writer. I've heard and seen some pretty wretched English. But even so, it's usually pretty easy to tell a native from a non-native. That's what is meant by "writing like a native writer". And it's nothing to do with American Indians aka Native Americans. It's valid anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the underlying premise is understood, but is that construction actually used? I'd say "no", based on my grand total of one opinion on the subject. Matt Deres (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I heard that used, I'd respond with a "wh...at?", not just because it's bizarre, but because it's something that I've never encountered. Humans all learn language, unless they actively aren't given the chance (e.g. Victor of Aveyron) or they have profound mental difficulties; it's natural for a human. Writing, however, isn't — it's a skill we've developed to simplify the use of language that we already have, and while language is a basic way we express ourselves, writing isn't. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about someone I knew years ago, who was a German native and spoke German fluently, but couldn't really read or at least write German, because her family moved from Germany to Latin America before she was at an age when kids learn to write. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have known many people who can speak their native language, but cannot write it (and many who cannot even read it). Years ago when I studied Spanish in high school, most of the kids in class were Anglos, but there were some who had Mexican parents and who spoken Spanish at home. The kids whose parents were Mexican had the hardest time keeping up in class and had very low grades, often failing. Due to the fact that the Navajo language was never taught to Navajo children before the year 2000 or so, very few Navajos who speak their language well can read or write Navajo, although they can read and write English. Speaking, reading, and writing are three separate abilities, and it is very easy to be good at one of them, but not the others. —Stephen (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen G. Brown: Do not forget about listening, which may also be quite an independent skill. I imagine some persons may know written language well and/or have an ability to speak and understand simple everyday speech in vernacular language, but have a difficulty understanding elaborate non-stop speech like movies, lectures, TV/radio debates, songs, slang, etc.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nemesis (Roth novel) part of a series?

Is Nemesis (Roth novel) part of a series? Does it have a sequel or repeatred charaters at least? --Llaanngg (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Philip Roth, it is listed as the fourth and last novel in a series (Nemeses) that also includes Everyman, Indignation and The Humbling. Here's an article that discusses the links between the four novels, which seem to be mainly thematic and stylistic, not due to recurring characters. [1]. The four have been published in a single volume by the Library of America. [2] --Xuxl (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Infiltration" in different versions of English

In US English, this word seems to have an entirely negative meaning, going back at least to McCarthyism, as in "Communist sympathizers have infiltrated all levels of government". I just heard it used by a Canadian, in a positive way: "I'd like to thank all immigrants who have infiltrated Canadian society and joined us, to build a stronger nation". So, is this usage typical for Canada ? How is the word used in other variations of English ? And when did it switch to the exclusively negative meaning in US English ? StuRat (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EO says the sense of "penetrating enemy lines" dates to the 1930s.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canuck of long standing, infiltration is bad, unless you're talking about Tim Hortons. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is infiltration a Canuck?? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word can be used ironically, encompassing both implications. Thanking all immigrants for infiltrating Canadian society carries both implications—that what is seen by some as negative is seen by the speaker in a positive light. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration describes an intended violation of a border(filter) and thus is implying it as an hostile act. Just like Invasion, incursion, infidel. Etymology of common in-words likely originate from latin "inimicus" =enemy (lat. "in" =not, lat. "amīcus" =friend). --Kharon (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]