Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 May 9
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 8 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | 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. |
May 9
[edit]Book references for conventions in Wu/Shanghainese?
[edit]I wanted to see how to get the Shanghainese/Wu names of schools from a dictionary. A Chinese user showed me a website which gives the Wu pinyin and tones, but he added that a school in Shanghainese is stated as "學堂" rather than "学校/學校" which is used in Mandarin and Cantonese. However he wasn't aware of any books which explain the conventions of Shanghainese and the differences between Mandarin and Shanghainese.
Do any of you know of any publications which would explicitly state this in the text?
Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the above article's intro sentence "Disarmed Enemy Forces […] was a US designation for soldiers who surrendered to an adversary after hostilities ended and for those who had already surrendered POWs and held in camps in occupied German territory at the time." doesn't it have to say "[…] and for those who had already surrendered POWs and held them in camps […]"? Whatever may be correct, I'm sorry to say I don't quite get what exactly is [supposed to be] referred to here.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2
- I think that something like "... and for those who had already surrendered and were held in POW camps in occupied German territory at the time" is probably what is meant. Deor (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Done, is that better? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Changed to more closely match ref: and for those POWs who had already surrendered and were held in camps in occupied German territory at the time. That is, newly surrendering soldiers or existing POWs still being held in Germany. I think "POWs" was just misplaced. Jmar67 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks to all of you. Actually, I could have thought of that myself as well … Regards--Hildeoc (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Changed to more closely match ref: and for those POWs who had already surrendered and were held in camps in occupied German territory at the time. That is, newly surrendering soldiers or existing POWs still being held in Germany. I think "POWs" was just misplaced. Jmar67 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Done, is that better? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)