Language desk
< August 9	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 11 >

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.

August 10

Japanese honorifics and military language

In the US military, common honorific titles have specific meanings. That is, sir is used specifically to address officers, not as a general sign of respect. Japan, on the other hand, has a far more complicated structure of honorific titles (a description of which I have read, but not fully understood, at Japanese honorifics). How do these rules apply to the specific rank relationships in the Japanese military? Specifically, how does one address an officer, and how does one address an NCO? Is this different now, with the Self-Defense Forces, than it was with the Imperial Japanese Army? Thanks for any insight. EDIT: Replacing IP sig with logged in sig. gnfnrf (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting my hand in the fire for this, but I'm pretty sure they just use the rank - similar to the use of "sensei" that is described in the article on Japanese honorifics. So, when addressing a colonel (on land) or a captain (on sea), you'd just call them "taisa" (大佐). Similar with names - assume you have a captain Yamamoto - he'd be referred to as "Yamamoto-taisa" instead of "Yamamoto-san", at least in his official capacity. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. You may wish to watch 男たちの大和 - a film about the Yamato battleship of WW2. Although set in WW2 and therefore being the Imperial Japanese Navy, I am pretty sure there will be no substantial difference in the way the JSDF address officers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese words for grains

I know maybe 3 words in Mandarin Chinese, so I'm asking for some expert help. Does anyone know the words in Mandarin for the cereal grain known as "corn" in America and "maize" in Europe? Is it a transliteration of one of those two words, or is it a totally different word? In English-style phonetics, please? I'm asking because there is an ongoing debate about whether "corn" or "maize" should win out, and someone mentioned Chinese. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, 玉米 yùmǐ, literally "jade rice". Not sure why it would be expected to be a transcription from English, since the plant apparently reached China through semi-obscure trading channels at a time when the British did not have a major presence in the far east. AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why they would call it "rice", because "rice" was their dominant cereal grain, so the qualified it, just as Europeans qualified American Indians' cereal grain by calling it "Indian corn", since they used "corn" for other grains. But why the "jade" part? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

米 does not mean rice specifically, at least not in its original meaning. The name of the rice plant is 稻. The dictionary I consulted says 米 refers to the seeds of grains with their outer part removed. --98.114.98.57 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the "outer part", are you referring to the green leafy husk that protects the ear, or are you referring to the layer of cellulose that each kernel contains? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means white rice, as opposed to brown rice or rice that hasn't been processed at all. --Kjoonlee 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. 옥수수 (Korean for sweet corn) can be analyzed as 옥 + 수수, jade/marble + cane. Jade (Chinese jade) can be yellow, white, or green in Asia, and jade marbles are fairly common as well. Maybe they looked as yellow as yellow jade marbles? Or maybe the grains looked like marbles, compared to rice? --Kjoonlee 14:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a quote, possibly by Sun Tzu

The Art of War lists "Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful." What I'm looking for is something along the lines "A battle not fought is a battle won." Does anyone remember a quote with a similar meaning that comes from Sun Tzu or maybe from the field of martial arts?

Basically, what I'm looking for is a quote explaining that going to battle is only the second-best option, and that there are "honorable" ways of avoiding a battle, rather than running away like a coward. Like, say, deceiving the opponent into believing he is outnumbered.

And yes, I'm aware that running away like a coward may still be the best choice in some situations. ;-) -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, please re-post your reply - Quote #1 and #3 were pretty close to what I was looking for, so it is well possible I just ran into a different translation when I heard that quote I'm thinking of. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it just seemed too close to the very first quote in your post .. :-)

From Chapter 3 according to wikiquote:

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

Variant translations

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting."

---Sluzzelin talk 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were key in finding the solution, pun intended. ;-) -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax of "Doctor Livingston, I presume?"

Hi, what kind of question, syntax-wise, is this question?

Doctor Livingston, I presume?

Could you say this is a tag question? Or is it just a yes-no question? Do you think it involves left dislocation? Thank you in advance. :) --Kjoonlee 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume Vocative phrase + Main clause (no dislocation). AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Dr Livingstone" is vocative. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the lingo to name what I think it is, so I'll try to explain it instead. I think "Dr Livingstone" is elliptical for "You are Dr Livingstone" (or some similar sentence), the main clause of the sentence~~, and the rest of it is a tag question~~. (If the main clause were "I presume" and the rest merely vocative then the whole would mean "I presume?" (with an addressee named), without specifying what Stanley presumed!)—msh210℠ 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Modifying in light of Kjoonlee's comments below.—msh210℠ 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, such apparently extremely vague questions are in fact often met with if the general overall conversational situation provides appropriate context (e.g. "Do you think?" etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's not this case AFAICT.—msh210℠ 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best described as a "declarative question" as it isn't really much of a question more a declaration said in a questioning way. meltBanana 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting one. I've heard this a thousand times without ever questioning its structure, so well done, Kjoonlee. The "I presume" isn't really part of the question - Stanley was asserting that he was presuming the person he's talking to is Livingstone. The only question was his wondering if this presumption was correct. It's a more elegant way of saying, "I presume you are Dr Livingstone. Is that correct?". We don't have a punctuation mark for indicating only a part of a sentence is a question, and we're forced to use the question mark at the end, even if the real question came to an end some time before the end. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at some other samples as well:

"I presume" questions
1. Doctor Livingston, I presume?
2. Fresh fruit, I presume?
3. Enjoying your stay, I presume?
4. We will be having dinner after that, I presume?
Tag questions
1. You're Doctor Livingston, aren't you?
2. This is fresh fruit, isn't it?
3. You're enjoying your stay, aren't you?
4. We will be having dinner after that, won't we?

This has made me think "I presume" questions are a bit different from tag questions, but still, I think they're mighty similar. --Kjoonlee 07:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag questions are always, by definition, questions, but "I presume" utterances need not be. One could just as well state "Dr Livingstone, I presume", without a rising tone denoting a question. If the other party is indeed Dr L, they might feel no need to say anything; but they might; or they could make a denial/correction if they're Barbara the midwife. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tag questions are similar, if you consider these lines from Groundhog Day:

These sticky buns are just heaven.
Aren't they. (falling intonation)

--Kjoonlee 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that usage really a tag question? Is it even a question at all? It has the form of a tag question (apart from the lack of a question mark), but its meaning is outright strong agreement, whereas a tag question admits the possibility, however slight, that the statement might conceivably be untrue. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes. In Ultraviolet episode one, Jack Davenport's character (and his friend's former fiancee) uses falling intonation tag questions (complete with the first part and the tag part), with no possibility of it being conceivably untrue. Maybe this is British/regional usage? --Kjoonlee 17:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about the question mark? Shouldn't that always appear in something that has the form of a question? Or is it omitted in these cases (a) because it would mislead readers for starters, but also (b) in implicit acknowledgment that these are not actually questions, regardless of their form? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refining

Why, when both are refined, is unprocessed sugar 'raw', but unprocessed oil 'crude'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.203 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because sugar is food. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as refined pork chops or heads of lettuce, so how does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.203 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncooked or unprepared food is often "raw", as in raw meats, raw vegetables, or raw sugar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so is unprepared coal. There is also a term "raw crude oil"[1], which means it still has brine and stuff in it. 213.122.22.8 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And probably a lot of dead fish, nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely Bugs, unless you are referring to cans of sardines. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill gag, innit. 213.122.47.23 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppir. How quickly a crisis seems to become yesterday's news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of the English subjunctive? (example)

I'm wondering if the following sentences are grammatically correct. I am a native speaker of English, but also recently become aware of the way we use the subjunctive mood in English. Sometimes my initial reaction is to not put something in the subjunctive, and other times, yes, to put it in the subjunctive. Essentially, I'm wondering if my natural instinct is correct or incorrect for these cases. Anyway, here is the sentence I was first debating about: "I hope it continues." However, since this is an expression of hope, I was thinking that one should use the subjunctive (as stated by this site that I was looking at for reference). When I put the optional "that" in, using the subjunctive seemed more feasible to be grammatically correct. "I hope that it continue." seems more likely to be correct than "I hope it continue." Basically, I'm wondering what form of the verb "to continue" would fill in the following blanks: "I hope that it ___." and "I hope it ___." Thank you! :-) — Trevor K. — 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakeyglee (talk • contribs)

To a linguist, the only absolute criterion for validity is the judgement of native speakers. If all native speakers without exception say that something is wrong, then it's wrong, regardless of any other patterns that may exist in the language. That's clearly what is going to happen here: no native English speaker is going to say "I hope it continue".

But to explain it anyway, a sentence of the form "I hope that X" or "I hope X" is only valid if X standing alone is a proper sentence. "It continue" is not a proper sentence; "It continues" is. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely: in those versions of English which still use the subjunctive, and excepting a few fossilised expressions like "Long live ... " and "Be it ... ", it is used only in contrafactual conditional clauses ("If I were to go ... ") or in subordinate clauses with an explicit 'that' after verbs of requesting or stipulating ("I demand that it continue"). I don't think any modern variety of English would use it after "hope". --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing through the instances of "hope that" that Google finds on Wikisource in the King James Bible, the works of Shakespeare, and the Canterbury Tales, I can find no case where "hope that" is followed by a present subjunctive. It usually takes some sort of modal verb like may, might, shall or will. If your inner pedant balks at using an indicative in "I hope it continues", then you can in good conscience write "I hope it may continue" or "I hope it will continue". +An gr 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "I hope it continue" is used at http://ciberweb.msu.edu/success/?InstituteID=3. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by someone who, before his comment was edited, apparently wrote "It would not have happen" and "This program has really open my son's eye". +An gr 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish name of state agency

Page 4/5 of this document stated "Michigan Department of Community Health" as "Departamentu Zdrowia Komunalnego stanu Michigan"

But I understand that words in eastern European languages have different forms depending on use. How would the name be translated in a hypothetical Polish Wikipedia article about the department? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is the citation form of this phrase; in this case specifically the nominative case. I think you just drop the -u from the first word: Departament Zdrowia Komunalnego stanu Michigan. +An gr 22:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the form Departament Zdrowia Komunalnego stanu Michigan also occurs in the document you linked to, e.g. in about the middle of page 4 just below the bold-face question "Jakie kroki zapobiegawcze przeciwko dżumie są podjęte w stanie Michigan?" +An gr 22:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see it says Komunalnege rather than Komunalnego there, but I think that's a typo. +An gr 22:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was what I was looking for. Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern European languages"? Is that some sort of euphemism for "Slavic languages"? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - it could refer to a unit of areal features found in many languages of Eastern Europe, Balkan sprachbund-kind of thing, rather than unfamiliarity with language families. -- the Great Gavini 08:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This "different forms depending on use" thing seems like a Slavic thing to me, and I'm not aware of some "Eastern European Sprachbund". Rimush (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is neither Slavic nor Eastern European, for a trivial example. It really puzzles me where this misconception that declension is something specifically Slavic comes from. For one thing, Slavic languages inherited it from Proto-Indo-European; for another thing, many non-IE language families are inflecting or agglutinative too.—Emil J. 12:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes from the fact that of the modern Indo-European languages, only the Balto-Slavic languages and Albanian still have a well developed system of noun declension and a relatively large number of cases. The most familiar Romance and Germanic languages except German have all given up declension, and even in German declensional marking on nouns themselves is minimal (most declension is shown on determiners and adjectives, and there are only four cases). The one Romance language that does still have traces of declension is Romanian - an Eastern European language. So the only modern European languages most English speakers encounter that have full blown declension of nouns and more than three or four cases are Slavic languages like Polish and Russian and other Eastern European languages like Finnish and Hungarian. +An gr 12:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Icelandic and Modern Greek, both of which decline nouns pretty much in the same ways they did 1,000 and 2,000 years ago respectively. I would regard Greek, at least, as being a language many people are familiar with in one way or another. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic has only 4 cases and Modern Greek only 3 (loss of the dative case is one way Modern Greek is quite different from Ancient Greek). And Greek is also Eastern European anyway. +An gr 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek also has four, if we count the vocative case, which, by the way, is there in Bulgarian and Macedonian too. --Theurgist (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For completeness' sake I'll mention that Irish has 3 or 4 cases (nominative, vocative, genitive, and sometimes dative) and Scottish Gaelic has the same 4 cases too . Manx has traces of a genitive. +An gr 12:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian, and the closely-related Macedonian, are Slavic languages too, but they are exceptions to that rule. They have eliminated the case declension system. Nouns only inflect for number and definiteness, and some traces of the Proto-Balto-Slavic case system can be observed in certain archaic phrases still in use today. Bulgarian and Macedonian are the most analytic Slavic languages. --Theurgist (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exception in the other direction is Basque, which (according to our article Basque grammar) apparently has 12 cases despite being a Western European language. It's probably not familiar enough to most English speakers (even linguistically educated ones) to do much to counter the stereotype that Eastern European languages tend to be heavy on declension. +An gr 12:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basque is quite unrelated to any other extant language and is thought to be very ancient (based partly on the fact that the Basque word for "axe" has the same root as the word for "stone"). "It is the last remaining pre-Indo-European language in Western Europe" according to the WP article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic name of the state agency

Based on the names stated in http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Botulism_Fact_Sheet_in_Arabic_142566_7.pdf - what is the Arabic name of the agency?

The name should be in Page 4 or Page 5... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Michigan Department of Community Health is إدارة ﺻﺤﺔ اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺑﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﺸﻴﻐﺎن ("Department of Community Health in the state of Michigan").--Cam (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]