Language desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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.

October 13

German Unvereinnahmbarkeit

In Evelyn Richter, there is an English translation of a long quote from a German original text. In the English version, Unvereinnahmbarkeit is translated as "unapproachability" which IMO is quite off the mark. The German word is a highfalutin Wortschöpfung, but occasionally heard when referring to artists and their work, and easily understood by people accustomed to this kind of jargon. Literally, it's "unappropriatability" (intended to mean "her work defies appropriation for partisan causes") if there's such a word at all (German L1 here). Does this work as a translation, or is there a more idiomatic term for it? –Austronesier (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no single word in English to get across this concept. I would translate it as something like "in her resistance to appropriation" or "in her refusal of appropriation". --Viennese Waltz 16:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a property of the artist, but of her work. I suggest elusiveness (defying capture). --Lambiam 20:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew word Satan

no replies on the talk page here Talk:Satan#Hebrew_word_Satan_extra_"dot" . is this Hebrew word in the article correct? Gfigs (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming the "extra dot" is the Sin dot. Cheers ⌘_hugarheimur 21:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the reply..i cannot read or write Hebrew..however, on further enquiry..I think it maybe a Dagesh diacritic, appearing within the letter Sin, as in the word Dagesh:Hashshamayim within the Shin in this article? Is this right? Gfigs (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it is a dagesh forte that indicates letter doubling for the purposes of syllabification. This is because hassatan (הַשָּׂטָ֖ן) carries the dagesh. However, I do think you've spotted an error in this case, since satan standing on its own shouldn't carry the dagesh. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my mobile text editor is unfortunately not handling combined Hebrew and English words properly..hopefully those on the talk page will be able to make the changes, where necessary.. Gfigs (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Bibliomaniac has fixed the error. --Lambiam 11:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

I properly understand Wikipedia's rules for them, but are there any grammatical rules (for lack of a better term) for the hyphen, en dash, and em dash? If so, in which cases should I use each? I'd done some research myself online, however, there seems to be a lack of straightforwardness when it comes to such topics (their rules seem to be extremely vague). Thanks (-, or —, or –) ASploopyPerson (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our dash article is pretty comprehensive, but the rules do vary somewhat with different varieties of English and the preferences of different publishers. The distinction between a hyphen and a dash is clear cut, but a lot of people don't know how to type a dash so they put a hyphen instead. Personally I use spaced en-dashes for parentheses rather than em-dashes. Do you have a more specific example or question that is not addressed in the article?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In older typography, spaced dashes were not or very rarely used, while dashes of a multi-em width were not uncommon. Example: 1872 edition of Through the Looking-Glass. Here they indicate rhetorical pauses. The choice between spaced en dash and unspaced em dash is mainly a matter of taste or convenience. --Lambiam 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as noted in hyphen, it is NOT clear-cut, "there are some overlaps in usage (in which either a hyphen or an en dash may be acceptable, depending on user preference...)" and later in the same article "Style conventions that apply to hyphens (and dashes) have evolved to support ease of reading in complex constructions; editors often accept deviations if they aid rather than hinder easy comprehension." and other places as well. There issue is that the en-dash and em-dash exist in typesetting but not normally on typewriters, and as computer keyboards evolved from the typewriter, the use of computers to write means that hyphens are quite often perfectly acceptable to use in the place of endashes in many types of writing where formal typesetting styles are not expected. As with any style guide, Wikipedia's Manual of Style is free to set whatever arbitrary conventions it wants for the use of dashes, and given that it is the agreed upon style guide, we should follow it when writing in Wikipedia, but in writing outside of Wikipedia, use a) whatever style guide or style manual is preferred by whoever is publishing your work or b) in unpublished work where you are just typing using a standard keyboard, the hyphen is often acceptable as it is not usually expected for the average person to have the unicode for the endash at their fingertips for use in their normal writing on their computers. --Jayron 32 16:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Shantavira's mention of different publishers having different rules, see Style guide. As with many matters in English writing, there is no single, universally accepted set of conventions for using hyphens and rules, but rather various sets which differ in their details. The aim was/is to maintain consistency firstly within a given work for the benefit of its readers, and secondly within the output of a particular publisher for the benefit of its writers, editors, printers and proofreaders (although a particular work might deliberately deviate from it where the subject matter demanded).

Printers might work for several publishers with different sets of House rules, but would have the House Manual for each and be adept at adhering to the appropriate one. Smaller publishers, for whom the compilation of a House style would have been a considerable undertaking, would often adopt that of a larger publisher: the Oxford University Press rules were so widely followed that their Hart's Rules and Dictionary for Writers and Editors have been published in multiple editions and under various titles for purchase by the public since 1904. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hart's Rules is commonly used in British writing, American equivalents are the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS commonly) and MLA Style Manual. The Elements of Style (commonly called "Strunk and White" after its authors) is a bit archaic, and even at its time had some criticisms, but remains popular. Those are the three most common American style manuals for general use. CMOS or MLA especially are usually 99% of what you need for any formal writing, and many house styles match those except for esoteric minutiae. --Jayron 32 18:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For American rules, I'm a huge fan of Bryan Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage. Here's an excerpt from the entry for en-dash (p. 540):

The en-dash, which is half as wide as an em-dash, is distinct (in print) from the hyphen and is used to join pairs or groups of words wherever movement or tension, rather than cooperation or unity, is felt. It is often equivalent to to or versus. ... The en-dash is also used for joint authors—e.g. "the Prosser[–]Keaton text." But it's not used for one person with a double-barreled name: "the Lloyd-Jones hypothesis" (that’s a hyphen, not an en-dash).
In circumstances involving a disjunction, the en-dash is usually preferable to the virgule—e.g.: "If we managed to get that far, the absurdity of attempting to preserve the 19th century possessive–generative dichotomy [not possessive / generative dichotomy] will have become apparent."

It's a pleasure just to dip in and read Garner's manual, even if you don't have a particular usage question in mind. Highly recommended, and a welcome modernization which leaves Strunk & White (which I still greatly admire) and the others feeling stiff, precious, or antiquated. Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]