Language desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 1 >

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.

October 31[edit]

Possible translation, English to French or Italian[edit]

I gave a new user (see User talk:Dariobazec a standard Wikipedia welcome message, and then a personalized message explaining why I reverted their edit. The primary reason was the link wasn't in English, and I also mentioned out COI policy because the user name is the same as the author of the linked page. Anyway, flash forward 2 weeks, and the user has contacted my by e-mail and ask if I could translate my message into French or Italian. I personally cannot do that, so I am here to see if anyone wants to give it a try. The user has not continued to edit here, and since English isn't their primary language, they may not contribute much in the future, so the importance of getting my message across to them isn't of the upmost. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could perhaps make your comment in French rather short and to the point - ""Le lien externe n'est pas en anglais, et il me semble que vous avez un conflit d'intérêt." (The external link isn't in English, and it seems to me that you have a conflict of interest.) Xn4 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the adjective for something or someone from Hong Kong?[edit]

--166.121.36.10 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Konger Front uses "Hong Konger". "Hong Kongese" gets a fair number of Google hits, although a lot of them are simply people asking if that's the right word, rather than confidently using it. "Hong Kongian" and "Hong Kongish" get some hits too. It's probably most common to just use "Hong Kong" attributively (as in "He's a Hong Kong businessman"; "the Hong Kong government"). —An gr 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our list of adjectival forms of place names, which in pertinent part comes, at least apparently, from Ethnologue gives "Hongkonger" (alternatively, "Hong Konger") as the usual demonym; Angr is, though, as ever, right, I'd imagine, about the most common usage. Joe 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Hongkongers claims "Recently, the word 'Hongkongese' is also found and is getting more popular to describe the unique local culture of Hong Kong or to refer to Hongkongers". It refers us to an online article by Angela Poon and Jenny Wong called Struggling for Democracy Under China: The Implications of a Politicised 'Hongkongese' Identity Xn4 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driving while intoxicated[edit]

Here in the States it seems to be most common for people to call driving a car while intoxicated by alcohol "drunk driving". I always took this to be a shortened form of "drunken driving" which kind of made sense to me. Recently I just learned that in some places it's more common to call it "drink driving", which, to me, sounds like someone got into a very large brandy snifter and was driving it from place to place. So, why did the phrase "drink driving" come about? Dismas|^(talk) 08:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article driving under the influence, "drunk driving" is an American term, and "drink driving" is primarily British and Australian. szyslak 09:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely call it "drink driving" here in the UK, not sure why but it might be something to do with government safety campaigns urging people not to "Drink & Drive". "Drunk driving" is not a commonly used term here.GaryReggae 11:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction exists as a disincentive. Otherwise, people might take "drunk driving" to mean "driving when completely plastered" as opposed to "driving under the influence of alcohol", for which a much smaller alcohol intake is required. 80.254.147.52 11:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, "drink driving" sounds odd grammatically to the American ear. It's funny, isn't it, how basic differences in the way a word is understood and used in different places sometimes surface only like this. Yanks have probably heard Brits and Ozzies use "drink" lots of times without realizing they sometimes meant something subtly different than (to) what we heard. And I've never had much luck getting a good answer from the other side as to the difference, as I'm sure they haven't, either. We have trouble getting our heads around the idea that a common word could be interpreted any other way than ours. I just looked in the OED to try to get a handle on this, and the best I could come up with was "drink" in the sense seen in "He took to drink after the untimely death of his hamster." (Not an OED example.) There is also a sense, "We had a big drink last night", which means not "We had a large one" but "We all got very drunk." --Milkbreath 12:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in the UK we have "driving with excess alcohol in the blood" - that is to say, the prosecution does not have to demonstrate that driving was affected or influenced by drink, simply that the accused had alcohol in their system above a statutorily defined limit. This is not to be construed as legal advice and is in no way intended as such. It is merely a statement of my personal understanding of the law, and is offered on an "as is" basis, with no warranty express or implied. You are responsible for your own actions and for your own interpretation of anything you read here, and neither Wikipedia nor its contributors make any legal claim as to the veracity or otherwise of any statement contained herein. Caveat emptor. DuncanHill 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same in the states as explained in DUI#United_States. -- Diletante 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read someone who wrote of "drink driving", and I thought perhaps they were too drunk to type properly. Learn something every day around here, thanks! Pfly 07:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, while I (a Brit) would indeed call the offense "drink driving", I would call the offender a "drunk driver". Koolbreez 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the terms we use over here, too. Although I (an Australian) would call the offense an offence. :) -- JackofOz 12:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DUCKWALK[edit]

As promised I quote the reply received this minute from the Webmaster for John Sandford (he of the PREY books).

This is what he says:

<The word DUCKWALK is much used in the Prey books. I understand the context but cannot trace the word. Nor can the good people on the language desk at Wikipedia.

<I'm not sure where the word comes from, but it's VERY well known, to the point of being a "required ability" in the US military.

<Basically, it means walking while in a very low crouching position. Not crawling, not just running along while hunched over, but actually crouching-and- walking.

<It's a very distinctive gait, which apparently someone sometime thought resembled how a duck walks.>

I replied, with thanks, to the effect that it will soon be in everyday usage if it is common to the US Army.

SO NOW WE KNOW86.216.251.162 15:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

Thanks for the followup. Having been in the US Air Force, although several years ago, though, I would have to say this is not a required ability in the Air Force. Corvus cornix 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having been in the US Navy, I can clarify this. It is a very useful skill for an infantry(wo)man who wishes to A) stay on his/her feet, B) move, and C) minimize height-above-ground, and is of very little use for anyone else. Thus, it is commonly taught and used by many in the US Army and US Marine Corps. It isn't taught, tested, used, or even known about, for most people in the US Air Force, US Navy, or US Coast Guard. Of course, each of these services does have small groups of people (SEALs, etc) with infantry skills, so it's not completely unknown. -SandyJax 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think I suggested this as a possibility. ;) FiggyBee 06:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus in a redundant way[edit]

Apparently there are some 3210 cases of "general consensus" in the english version of wikipedia: [1]. Since this is a severe case of redundancy, might there be a decent way of changing that, please? A bot, e.g.. The same counts for two other cases of redundancy: "consensus opinion" ([2]), and "consensus of opinion" ([3]). All of these should just read "consensus", nothing more. Thanks. (Unless I am wrong, of course...) --VanBurenen 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Good call! DuncanHill 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage note from Merriam-Webster: "The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant ... has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so." Hardly a ringing endorsement. For professional linguists who despise Strunk and White's "omit needless words" advice, see Language Log: "omit needless words" site:itre.cis.upenn.edu. It seems to me that in practice "general consensus" is being used as a weaker version of "consensus": not everybody was happy, but most people were fairly happy. A useful distinction. jnestorius^(talk) 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual phrase for that here at Wikipedia is "broad consensus". —An gr 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work with this reference desk/Language? If such a fault in the wikipedia breeding has been pointed out, are there people going around busily fixing things or is this just a cry up wolves creek? --VanBurenen 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual response when some points out a mistake at Wikipedia is {{sofixit}}. —An gr 05:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I know. However, to fix about 4000 (as per google count) wrongs... There are those that use bots to fix things in large numbers. I have no IT knowledge to do that. Is there not a quality supervising team that would do this? --VanBurenen 08:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a bot would make a "correction" even if an article was quite carefully distinguishing a more general consensus from consensus among a narrower group. But perhaps this is a quibble that can be overlooked in the name of progress. Wareh 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other phrases that could be purged are "n-year anniversary" and (with a bit more effort) "the fact that". —Tamfang 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many of these - see List of redundant expressions. -- JackofOz 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be a bit bold here and state that it is not necessarily redundant - it all depends on the situation.

Say, for instance, you are talking about the amount of snow in Buffalo, NY, a very snowy place. Here, there is redundancy if you say, "The general consensus was that we had a lot of snow."

However, in Washington D.C., where an inch or two of snow can shut down everything because people don't know how to drive, the "general consensus" might be that half a dozen such snows in one year means there was a lot of snow. However, that would only be a consensus about the general condition of something. The specifics, how it affected people, etc., may vary so much there can be no consensus there, only consensus as to the generalities. Those from the South would have one opinion of the snow, while the representatives from the snowy Northeast might scoff at them and say, "Yeah, it was really snowy because you can't handle it; you should try living in Buffalo!"

One could argue, of course, that those issues on which there is a consensus only as to general facts, but not specifics - such as how true the comment is, how it affects different people - do not belong in the pages of Wikipedia becasue they are not factual. However, "general consensus" does not strike me as redundant.

Generally, at least :-)Somebody or his brother 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "Chef <surname>" in the United States[edit]

Whilst watching Kitchen Nightmares through interesting internet aided means, I noticed a prevelent bias towards calling Gordon Ramsay "Chef Ramsay". I recall hearing the same whilst watching Hells Kitchen USA as well. As it's not something I've ever heard in the UK, as TV chefs are usually referred to by their full names here, is it a widespread American usage or is it something that was created by a TV show that stuck? Do other chefs in the USA get referred to by "Chef <surname>"? Is there some culinary heirachy at play in respect to method of address? Foxhill 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's used all the time on Iron Chef America. The chefs call each other "Chef <surname>", even if they're apparently good friends. But it only seems to apply to those who actually own restaurants. I don't know if anybody would call Rachael Raye "Chef Raye". Corvus cornix 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is commonly used on the Food Network, as Corvus notes. But its use in the United States in this way predates the existence of that TV network. I agree with Corvus that Rachael Ray would not be called "Chef Ray". However, I think that it is not so much a matter of owning or managing a restaurant as it is a matter of managing a team of sous chefs. Rachael Ray typically works alone, whereas the cooks known as "chef" manage a team of assistants. Marco polo 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a reflection of the American way of referring to people like "President Reagan", "Chief Wiggum", "Mayor Brown", "Sheriff Smith", "District Attorney Jones", "Secretary of State Kissinger" and so on. -- JackofOz 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the cultural impact of the Japanese TV show Iron Chef, which has enjoyed tremendous popularity in the U.S. The house chefs are known as "Iron Chef Chen", "Iron Chef Morimoto," etc. -- Mwalcoff 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food Network uses it consciously, I suspect, to try and enhance the apparent importance of its stars. It's not often used in real life....and even on TV it's somewhat amusing, as it's redolent of Chef Boyardee (with a pedigree in America since 1940) and summons up the image of a can of overcooked pasta in a non-descript sauce rather than having the desired effect. It is, I submit, an element of the high camp that is "Iron Chef" rather than a real term of approbation. - Nunh-huh 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]