Language desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30

liquidation

I'm curious about the history of liquidate as euphemism for kill (political scapegoats).

What's the core metaphor here? Converting useless 'assets' into something that can at least be used as fertilizer? Or were enemies of the People sometimes put into blenders?

I have the impression that it originated under Stalin. Is that anywhere near accurate? If so, what's the Russian word?

I may later remember other related questions. —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a metaphor from financial liquidation (which meant converting something into "liquid" assets)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says it is indeed from the Russian word likvidírovat. The first citation is from 1924 and refers to the elimination of the Workers' Opposition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably similar to the Polish usage where zlikwidować typically means "to get rid of". — Kpalion^(talk) 13:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Liquidate' was used prior to 1924, here's a 1911 example, http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/twwliqus/index.htm --Soman (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OED dates the first citation in English to 1924. The Russian usage is certainly older than that. Interestingly, the Russian example you're giving isn't really an instance of the use in the sense "to kill" - it's a reference to a current among Russian Marxists around 1910 that was derogatively dubbed "the liquidationists" (ликвидаторы) for wanting to "liquidate" = disband the old illegal revolutionary underground cells of the Social Democratic party and replace them by legal organisations such as worker's unions or cooperatives that could eventually develop into a legal party.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks! —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian, the verb "liquidate" is the usual one for "get rid of" or "destroy." Russians don't know that the verb does not have such a broad meaning in English (or French) and thus use it too often when speaking Western European languages. That's how it got tagged with the special meaning of "physically eliminating an opponent" because there was a lot such liquidation activity going on in tsarist and revolutionary Russia in the early years of the 20th century. --Xuxl (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the line from The Wizard of Oz: Dorothy - "We brought you the broomstick of the Wicked Witch. We melted her!" Wizard - "Oh, you liquidated her, eh? Very resourceful!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese"

I've just nominated this article for renaming because the present title sounds like Chinglish to me — however, the incomprehensibility of the present title means that I can't come up with a good replacement suggestion. Is there any standard academic way of referring to this phenomenon? I know nothing of Chinese, so I can't imagine how I could search for such a subject. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise either, so this is just a stab in the dark, but how about Multiple Associations Between Traditional and Simplified Chinese Characters. Eiad77 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese". StuRat (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification —Tamfang (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(pile on)Mapping between Traditional and Simplified Chinese. No such user (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" looks like a list with an introduction. It lokos to me like it really should be a list that branches out of Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters, and be named something like "List of simplified Chinese characters with multiple corresponding traditional Chinese characters". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce the surname Florescu?

And what country does it come from? --112.213.145.95 (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Romanian. —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly the Romanian language, the -escu ending being a dead giveaway, but that language is also widely spoken in Moldova. Florescu (surname) lists a notable Moldovan person with this Romanian surname. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly neither the disambiguation page for Florescu (surname) or any of the articles about people with this surname have a pronuciation guide, so maybe, just maybe, it is pronounced as it is written Flor-ess'-koo. I tentatively suggest that if it were not straightforward then the English WP would have pronunciation guidance. Regrettably I am not familiar with IPA. Richard Avery (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA pronunciation is more like floresku, or in rough English phonetic transcription, "floe RAY skoo", in which the R is rolled. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but I have also heard it pronounced "flor (rolled 'r') -es - koo." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the Romanian /e/ and /o/ are mid vowels. Since Romanian doesn't contrast between close-mid and open-mid vowels in the way that German or French do, they are conventionally rendered by the IPA symbols for the close-mid vowels, e and o. Think of something in between the vowels in French fée and fait, or German Fehl and Fell. Or something in between English "rest" and "race", but without the /i/ glide that is found at the end of the English diphthong in the latter word. If you are just looking for a usable English pronunciation, I'd recommend something like [flɔːˈrɛsku] (flaw-RESS-koo) or [fləˈrɛsku] (flə-RESS-koo). Lesgles (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that flo-RESS-coo is way better than flo-RAY-scoo, at least from the perspective of a speaker of a language that doesn't contrast close-mid and open-mid (I don't know what the French would think). I think that it's much more important to avoid a final glide and prolonged pronunciation of the vowel (as in RAY) than to get the quality of the vowel exactly right. I'm puzzled by how most American speakers seem not to notice the length and the offglides (Y and W sounds) that characterize their BANE and BONE vowels, and consequently to consider them to be excellent renditions of standard European short /e/s and /o/s. Similarly, the length of the vowel in German Fehl makes it inappropriate for a normal short /e/, be it an [ɛ] or an [e]. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Lesgles (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flo-RAY-scoo is definitely wrong. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly the following sentence means?

"The doctor knows that the fact that taking care of himself is necessary surprises Tom."

In particular I would like to know: What does the doctor know? What surprises Tom? 117.211.88.149 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

Tom is surprised by the fact that taking care of himself is necessary - the doctor knows that Tom is surprised. - X201 (talk)

I agree with X201's interpretation but would like to add that the insertion of a comma after "necessary" would greatly improve the intelligibility of the sentence. Roger (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can really put a comma there, though. It's not like you've got two clauses which can be separated with a comma. It's just a bad sentence and nothing can save it except for a recasting. --Viennese Waltz 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I propose "The doctor knows that Tom is surprised by the fact that taking care of himself is necessary." or "The doctor knows that Tom is surprised by the necessity of taking care of himself." Roger (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can put a comma there, some people use that sort of comma and some don't. It's a stylistic issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi help needed at the Science desk

An IP poster apparently from Iran has posted a question at the Science Refdesk using what looks like English from a machine translation - which is quite unintelligible. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Spreading mineral matters on earth. The OP is not responding to requests for clarification. We would appreciate it if someone fluent in Farsi could contact the OP to explain the problem with their original post. Thanks Roger (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the translation. Hope it helps. --Omidinist (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Roger (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

using of "the"

why we use "the" in this sentence?

today`s lecture is about the effects of background music on employee performance and retail sales.

why we don`t use "the" before "background"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhadis (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "the background music" you are refering to a specific instance of background music. It's the same as the difference between "I like apple pie" and "I like the apple pie". In the first case you are expressing a positive feeling towards apple pies in general, in the second you are refering to one particular pie. Roger (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...the effects of the background music..." sounds fine to me. After all, they are referring to the background music that the employees and customers hear, not just any background music. Likewise, "effects of background music" or "effects of the background music" seem fine. I think there's no particular logic to it. -- BenRG (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that BenRG is mistaken. There is a difference between a definite article and a zero article in English that does have a "logic" to it. You may want to review the linked Wikipedia article. It is possible to imagine a case where the phrase "the effects of the background music on employee performance and retail sales" would make sense. This would be a case in which the speaker or writer was referring to a type or use of background music that has already been discussed. Then the speaker or writer would be referring to a specific instance of background music, and the definite article the would be called for. However, in this case, the sentence begins "Today's lecture is about the effects of background music ...". In this case, it would be incorrect to use the before background music, because this is an introductory statement in which we are just being introduced to the use of background music in general. The speaker has not yet discussed any specific instance of background music.

As for why the precedes effects, that is a little more difficult to answer. Actually, I don't think that it would necessarily be incorrect to omit the before effects in this case, especially if the speaker intends to discuss some but not all effects that background music might have. However, in this case, by putting the before effects, the speaker is indicating that he or she is going to discuss, individually, every effect of background music on employee performance and retail sales. In this case, the effects implicitly means '"each of the specific effects". Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marco polo, how to do feel about "Today's lecture is about the effects, on employee performance and retail sales [at a department store], of background music"? Seems fine. How about "Today's lecture is about the effects, on employee performance and retail sales [at a department store], of the background music"? This also seems fine to me, even if no style of background music was mentioned before.

When I said "I think there's no particular logic to it", I meant "I think there's no rule demanding the omission of the definite article in this particular case". I wasn't talking about the English language in general. -- BenRG (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that English differs from some other European languages in its use of the definite article. In some European languages, the definite article is used for mass nouns, such as music. However, English does not ~~use~~ require the definite article for mass nouns. Instead, they typically get a zero article (that is, no article). If the questioner speaks a language in which the definite article is used for mass nouns, I can see why he or she would expect the before background music. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Music" may be a bad example, Signor Polo. "The music of the 20th century" - that's still a mass noun, no? -- Jack of Oz [your turn]

...but by modifying "music" with the requirement that it be from the 20th century, you are indicating a particular subset of music, thus qualifying for use of the definite article. You wouldn't use "the music" to refer to all music, just a particular set of music. Conversely, "Music of the 20th century" doesn't require the definite article to fix the meaning, and "water" can be generally "all H₂O," or you can fix a definite set of water, say, "the water of the Indian Ocean." ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The music of the 20th century took on a very different character from that of the 19th". While it is indeed about a particular sub-set of music, it's still a mass noun, is it not? Yet, the "the" is still required here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, there are certainly instances where English puts a definite article in front of a mass noun, such as the examples you have given here. In all of these cases, you are referring to a specific instance of that mass noun. For example, you would say, "I like the music of the 19th century", but you would not say, "I like the music" if you mean "I like music in general." Similarly, if you say, "The baby likes milk", you mean that she likes milk in general. If you say, "The baby likes the milk", you clearly mean the milk that she has at the moment, or a particular type of milk. In French, "Le bébé aime le lait" means that the baby likes milk in general. Marco polo (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the difference between English and languages such as French is that, in English, a definite article is optional with a mass noun and only correct when one is referring to a specific instance of the mass noun. In French and languages like it, a definite article is mandatory before a mass noun. For example, in French, you cannot say *"J'étudie histoire". You must say "J'étudie l'histoire" ("I study history" in English). Marco polo (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wasn't sure about the apparent categoricality of the original statement "English does not use the definite article for mass nouns". Thanks for clarificnation. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mass nouns: les arbres vs trees, say, shows the same rule: Romance languages give the general case an article, English doesn't. —Tamfang (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tamfang, I stand corrected. Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't visit this page often enough to add comments when most relevant or best timed. But I'd like to go back to BenRG's alternative formulations. It seems to me that the circumstances in which one would use "the" before "background music" are going to be relatively rare (or at least specific). For example, if some of the effects to be looked at in the lecture reflect the type of background music used - e.g. music that is rythmically dynamic energises staff while music that is all lush harmony and slowly shifting sounds makes them weary - it would be wrong (to my mind) to use a "the" before background music. Not using "the" in relation to "background music" therefore has a generalising effect. On the other hand, I think there would need to be a "the" if the lecture title were to refer specifically to one shop's use of music: "This lecture is about the effects of the background music played at Gap on employer performance ..."164.36.44.4 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please throw me the ball, in Spanish and Japanese.

Just wondering what the best translation for "please throw me the ball" would be in Spanish and Japanese. The online translators are not always perfect. Also, "can you throw me the ball please?".

Spelling them out is just fine, as it would appear in Spanish, and the English written equivalent in Japanese. Thanks! 198.168.27.221 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish: Por favor, lánzame la pelota should work for your first sentence; ¿Podría lanzarme la pelota, por favor? for the second one. Lexicografía (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By English written equivalent in Japanese do you mean romaji or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to their writing script, for example, domo arigato or konichiwa, so I know how to pronounce it. Thanks! 66.23.238.99 (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese: "(Sumimasen), Sono bōru o kottchini nagete kudasai". The second one is "(Sumimasen), Sono bōru o kottchini nagete moraemasuka/moraemasenka?". Oda Mari (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in thinking that the word "bōru" is the English word "ball" taken directly into Japanese? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. See gairaigo. Oda Mari (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! And I have since found this nifty website[1] which has a list of transliterated baseball terms in Japanese. "Besuboro", that is. It's ironic that so many baseball terms have L's in them, which all come out R's, naturally. But here's one that doesn't: a walk-off homer is a "sayonara homuran". Perfect. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, BB, 'baseball' is usually called 'yakyuu' in Japanese (　野球　which means 'field ball') and not 'besuboru'. I did hear people say 'besuboru' once or twice, but I just assumed they were saying it because I was an English-speaker as I had never seen it in print. Googling 'ベースボール' does give me over 17 million results, though. Being British, though, there's probably a ton of reasons I never saw it in print. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ベースボール takes up three times as much space as 野球. That makes a difference to composers of newspaper headlines. —Tamfang (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Field ball"? That's interesting. What do they call Cricket? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there are magazines. [2]. And World Baseball Classic is ワールド・ベースボール・クラシック. Cricket is クリケット. It is also a loan word. Tennis is テニス but it is also called teikyū/庭球, garden ball. A baseball bug in ja is Yakyū-kyō/野球狂. See #4 狂 means craze. Oda Mari (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Mari, how kind of you to translate BB's name! He should thank you! Incidentally, it's the same 'kyou' as in 狂牛病 (kyougyuubyou - 'Bovine spongiform encephalopathy') --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Minister?

In countries where they have ministers (of health, interior, etc.), what are some names of the deputy position? (i.e., what is the analogue for Vice President, replacing president by minister) I look for one less cumbersome than "vice minister" or worse, "deputy minister" (although I'm sure these are in use). THanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pecking order in the UK is, AFAIK, Secretary of State, Minister of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

South Africa has Deputy Ministers. The next in line is the Director General. Ministers and Deputy Ministers are Members of Parliament while the Directors General are civil servants, not elected office bearers. Roger (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministries and Departments are actually separate entities. A Ministry is the political office while the Department is the civil administration entity. In cases where a single Ministry controls two Departments there would be two Deputy Ministers, each responsible for one of the Departments. Each Department is headed by a Director General. Under each Director General there are a number of Deputy Directors General, each responsible for a particular staff function such as finance, personnel, etc. Roger (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has an Assistant Treasurer, and has in the past had Assistant Ministers for other things. We also have Parliamentary Secretaries, who have ministerial-like duties, increased pay, and are entitled to "The Honourable" as ministers proper are, but are technically answerable to their minister. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States has deputy secretaries, i.e. United States Deputy Secretary of Defense, who is the second in command of the Department of Defense, and "under secretaries", who are in direct charge of major subdivisions of cabinet departments, i.e. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and "assisstant secretaries", who are staff advisors without being in direct charge of subdivisions of the department (though they do have their own staffs), such as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Many of these offices have their own deputies and assistants, so you can get really convoluted job titles like "Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior" and "Assistant Under Secretary of Education" and stuff like that, in each case the relationship to their direct supervisor is preserved; so that "Deputy" means second-in-command and "Under" means "head of a division within the department" and "Assisstant" means "advisor and assistant without being a division head". --Jayron32 04:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a lot of secretaries. Can they all type? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Poland, a deputy minister is called wiceminister. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are Deputy Ministers in the Welsh Assembly [3] where they take responsibilty for one area of a Cabinet Minister's portfolio, and in Guernsey [4]. See also Deputy Minister (Canada). Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland has Ministers of State, formerly called Parliamentary Secretaries. EamonnPKeane (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has had three forms of vice minister: Deputy Minister, Minister of State, and Secretary of State. The positions of Minister of State and Secretary of State are political and have always been held by Members of Parliament; the difference is that Ministers of State are also members of the Cabinet while Secretaries of State are not. (There are no current Secretaries of State, but the position is not defunct - Harper simply didn't appoint any in this Parliament.) The Deputy Minister, on the other hand, is a career civil servant and is not a political appointee - I believe it's illegal for him or her to be one. Some Deputy Ministers have survived three or more changes of government. --NellieBly (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each ministry in Hungary have a few államtitkár, which are the second highest ranked position after the minister, and often (but not always) come and go with the government. They can lead sections of the ministry. For example, here's a list of the description of the seven sections of the Ministry of Interior, with the names of such a vice minister listed under each. Some of them even used to be called szakállamtitkár, but they abandonned that name because it sounds too funny (the word szakáll is in it, so it's a villanyírógép sort of word). Afaik, these aren't in deputy position as in replacing the minister if he becomes unavailable: a new minister is quickly appointed instead, though it might actually be one of these. – b_jonas 21:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I word brother and sister in law

Is it: My brother and sister in law Jack and Jane. or My brother in law and sister in law Jack and Jane. Or something else? My brother in law and his wife, Jack and Jane? It seems awkward no matter how I word it. Maybe: My brother in law Jack and Jane? (Sort of like how a wife is addressed as Mrs. Husbands-name in formal letters.) PS. This is for mentioning them to someone else, not for addressing them. Ariel. (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "brother in law and sister in law" then they needn't necessarily be married. If they are, "My brother-in-law Jack and his wife Jane" seems OK to me. This is assuming Jack is closest to you (i.e. your sister's husband or your wife's brother). If Jane is closest then I would say "My sister-in-law Jane and her husband Jack". 86.177.108.189 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles on brother-in-law and sister-in-law are accurate, they can be a sibling of one's spouse, or the spouse of a sibling of one's spouse. So there's some inherent ambiguity in those terms to begin with. If I were doing it, I would say "my siblings-in-law", and if someone wants details, you give them the full spiel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the phrase "my siblings-in-law" to mean my wife's brother and sister rather than her brother and his wife. Actually "my wife's siblings" would be clearer. Roger (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to interpret the scenario(s) posed by the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a brother in law, and his wife. And based on Roger's confusion, I need a better way to word it. Is the wife of a bother in law called a sister in law? Ariel. (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the articles I cited, the answer is "yes". Brother/Sister-in-law is an ambiguous term, because it can refer to a sibling of one's spouse; or the spouse of one's sibling; but it can also refer to the spouse of a sibling of your own spouse, or a sibling of the spouse of your own sibling. Under that broader usage, you become in-lawed to every marital connection. I tend to refer to those cases as "in-laws by marriage", but I don't think that's standard usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some languages have specific kinship terminology to refer to one's husband's brother's wife and/or one's wife's sister's husband. In a few languages, the term for "husband's brother's wife" is also the term that wives in a polygynous marriage use to refer to each other... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]