Language desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 22 >

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.

December 21[edit]

Japanese video game cut scene[edit]

Hi. Can someone please explain this cut scene, which is recorded from an old Famicom Disk System game named Kaettekita Mario Bros. but is not related to the game itself? I mean, what is the large building in the middle of the screen? What do the large Japanese texts say? Who is the old man? What did the old man do? What is the scene's storyline? Is the storyline completely fictional, or is it based on some Japanese historical or mythological events? etc. Many thanks. 118.96.166.11 (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a building. It's a package of a famous brand of ochazuke - http://www.otaku-mart.com/product/ochazuke-nori-rice-soup - so it's clearly either a blatant ad or a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't know who the man is...I feel like he's an iconic ad-related figure or something. Eccoei (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the comments points to this TV commercial starring Saburō Kitajima. -- BenRG (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. One more question: What did the old man do at the end of the scene? Isn't that reminiscent of Hanasaka Jiisan? 118.96.167.217 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be....[edit]

If someone asks me, what do you want to be, My answer would be: " I want to be technologically advanced person". Is this statement correct? Thanks--180.234.50.190 (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you cannot "be person". You have to "be a person", so your answer should be " I want to be a technologically advanced person" --85.119.25.27 (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most contexts your interlocutor can take it for granted that you want to be (indeed, already are) a person. I'd just say "I want to be technologically advanced". Pais (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While grammatically correct, doesn't that mean that their body contains advanced technology, like a pacemaker ? If they meant that they want to have advanced technical knowledge or an advanced technical degree or job, then that phrase doesn't cut it, for me. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point. Unless his ambition is to become a cyborg, I think a good answer would be, "I want to be high-tech savvy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words for...[edit]

what is the word for words like "madam" (same backward or forward)? And also for phrases like "rats live on no evil star"?

I was also wondering if there is a word for a phrase like "failing to plan it planning to fail"?(Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC));[reply]

The answer to your first question is Palindrome. As for the second, I guess you mean specifically the interchange of position of the two verbs but I don't know a particular word for this. asyndeton talk 12:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the second example be a chiasmus? Pais (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article does link antimetabole which seems to be what the OP is looking for. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, palindrome sounds familiar.

The antimetabole seems right too. Learn somethign new eveyday. Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyman's word games (1986) calls them "pseudodromes"[1]. Palindromes and anagrams (1973) calls then "word-unit palindromes" [2]. Marnanel (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth adding to the article.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian vs. Polish[edit]

Could somebody with a linguistic insight compare and contrast Polish against Croatian? I already know Croatian (and English) and I'd like to acquire another Slavic language. Russian is out of question because of Cyrillic writing system, which leaves me with the biggest (by number of speakers) Latin alphabet based Slavic language: Polish.

I'm mostly interested in major differences and things that will give me hardest time moving from Croatian into Polish. I've tried to do it myself, but since I've had very little formal education in Croatian, I'd at a loss what all that means in practice.

I'd also like names of some Polish-language literary works (fiction written by Polish authors originally in Polish preferably) with English translation, I find that it helps me to read something in language I know and then comparing it to language I'm trying to master. Things you'd expect ever educated Polish person knowing, a Shakespeare equivalent in Polish, if you will (not in style or genre, but in popularity). Thanks. --110.174.117.185 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Polish literature: I cannot speak Polish, but I've always wanted to read Stanislaw Lem's works in the original, particularly The Cyberiad. Lem still has plenty of currency in the US, and I'd imagine more so in Poland. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution regarding the use of Lem's original and translated works as parallel texts. Lem often deploys clever and extensive word play such that "translations of his works are difficult due to passages with elaborate word formation, alien or robotic poetry, and puns", to quote our article, which goes on to say that "multiple translated versions of his works exist." His translators, of whom Michael Kandel is perhaps the most outstanding, have to overcome this by creating new and different puns, etc, in their English translations. so a passage-by-passage comparison for learning purposes could sometimes be misleading (though doubtless also rewarding). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a classic work of Polish fiction the first example that springs to mind is Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz. For the Polish national poets you could see our page on the Three Bards. And I'm at one with SemanticMantis in wanting to read Lem in Polish. I'm not sure if you'll be able to find parallel text editions of any of those; you may have to buy them separately in English and Polish. EDIT: The national epic, Pan Tadeusz by Adam Mickiewicz, has been published in a parallel text edition. --Antiquary (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to rethink your decision not to touch Russian merely because of its different alphabet. People routinely assume it's an extraordinarily difficult language because of this, but that assumption is false. The Cyrillic alphabet is mastered surprisingly quickly by people already familiar with the Latin and/or Greek alphabets. Off-topic rant follows: This leaves one free to then focus on the *delights* of verbs of motion, perfective vs. imperfective aspects, idiomatic expressions and other things. But if you already know Croatian, some of these would not be as problematic for you as they can be for non-slavophones. Maybe I'm biased, but I'd much rather read out a page of Russian, where every letter has its own distinct sound, than a page of Polish with its double and sometime quadruple consonants (szcz), diacritics, nasalisations, and generally disgustingly ugly appearance (and its sound is not much better either). There, I've said it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought you would have a great difficulty learning Polish if you know Croatian. Like other West Slavic languages, it doesn't have the synthetic past tenses of South Slavic languages such as Croatian: it just has one past, corresponding to your "video sam", though the auxiliary is merged with the participle ("Widziełem"). Your biggest difficulties, I suspect, will be with the nasal vowels, and you may find the spelling confusing. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: I've had a go at some Lems in Polish. I'm by no means fluent in Polish, and have only dipped into them; but I found them heavier and less sparkling than Michael Kandel's English translations. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack of Oz that you shouldn't be intimidated by the Cyrillic alphabet. It is easy to learn. Also, I think that Russian would be much easier than Polish for a speaker of Croatian to pronounce. Polish has some difficult consonants and nasal vowels. However, I would disagree with Jack on the ease of reading Polish versus Russian. In Polish, virtually every letter or letter combination has a unique sound, and it is fairly easy to figure out the pronunciation from the written form. Russian I find more difficult. You have to know, for example, whether a vowel is stressed or unstressed to know how to pronounce it, and the pronunciation can vary further depending on context. I would also disagree with Jack on the aesthetics of Polish. I happen to think that it has a more pleasing sound than any other Slavic language. When I hear Russian, I hear boots trudging through mud. Of course, the aesthetics of language are completely subjective. Marco polo (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Cyrillic alphabet is relatively easy to learn, in the sense of being able to decipher a given text, that doesn't mean you won't be spending quite a while reading the way you did when you first learned to read any alphabet, as a child. Letter by letter. In my experience, the word superiority effect kicks in very gradually when you're learning to read a foreign alphabet as an adult, and depending on how young or gifted you are, it may take a lot of practice to achieve reading-fluency and recognize entire words and even compounds and clusters of words at one glance. Add the fact that you need to learn the cursive type as well in order to get anywhere in Russian, and I can understand why someone with limited time resources might choose a language in a familiar script. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British collective nouns[edit]

Which nouns are treated as collective nouns by the British? I know it is nouns implying a group, but how do they tell which? For example they would say "the club is" but "the team are" and "the band are". Thank you. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken in thinking this is a hard-and-fast rule: plenty of people in the UK use "is", and plenty use "are" for such nouns. You can verify this with a Google search restricted to the UK. So it's possible the same people you've heard using "the club is" would also say "the team is". Marnanel (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the distinction is neither over the particular words, nor the speaker. It is the context: are they conceiving the collection as a whole or as individuals. One and the same person will say, for example, "The team are playing tonight" and "The team is owned by Famous Q. Person". --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the usage. It is common in the UK (though apparently not in the US) to use a collective noun as shorthand for "the members of the group". Dbfirs 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's further discussion of points raised here at American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement, Collective noun#Metonymic merging of grammatical number, and Synesis. --Antiquary (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My English teachers in Australia in the 1950s and 60s had absolutely no doubt. Simple rule - A team is singular. A band is singular. A club is singular. There really isn't any need for confusion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical American usage:

The New York Yankees are based in the Bronx.

The New York Yankees Baseball Club is based in the Bronx.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the Yankees are different because it's a plural name. Got a more straightforward example? HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Minnesota Wild are a member of the NHL.

The Minnesota Wild Hockey Club is a member of the NHL.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Minnesota Wild are a member of the NHL". "are a"? In US English? You've really messed up the language now. Can we have it back please? I'll accept "The Minnesota Wild are members of the NHL", but that is just bizarre... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team names are a poor example as they are already in the plural. Think company name, typically in the singular.

American: "Chrysler is planning to bring back the Plymouth Duster"
British: "Chrysler are planning to bring back the Plymouth Duster"--also makes it clear Chrysler is a group or company, not the (original) bloke named Chrysler

PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Think company name, typically in the singular"? Interesting. In the US, a corporate entity is singular? 'Boeing is testing its new jetliner", vs "BP have struck oil"? It seems to work, for this Brit at least. Maybe it isn't about grammar at all, but about how we see the world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in informal North American usage, corporate entities take a singular verb but a plural pronoun. "Boeing is testing their new jetliner. They are hoping to have it in service next year." Only in formal usage -- legal or financial writing, or among grammar pedants -- would the pronoun "it" be used. --Anonymous, 05:52 UTC, December 22, 2010.

But "Chrysler is planning to bring back the Plymouth Duster" is equally acceptable in British English. --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant sporting series underway at the moment between England and Australia known as The Ashes. (I know it's largely incomprehensible to Americans, but if you want to start learning, follow that link.) I went to a few English newspaper sites to check language usage wrt the England team. The truth is that the journalists just seem to avoid that kind of usage entirely. Out of about a dozen articles I found two instances of "England are" and none of "England is". Interesting, but hardly statistically significant. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be slightly in error, HiLo48. You describe The Ashes as a 'sporting series'. It is nothing of the kind (and note that 'Ashes' is singular). It is a stylised 'battle' between the mother country and her colonial offspring, best understood as ritual rebellion, enacted in order to allow the said colonials the appearance of independence, even as they acknowledge their very cultural existence is tied to Britannia's apron strings. (At least, that's my excuse for why we let the Aussies' keep beating us...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Aussies' what? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, Andy. The Ashes is far more than a series. But one must make some attempt at translation, however difficult, into American. And I guess we should clarify that we say "The Ashes is...", not "The Ashes are..." HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you have surely used the phrase "are a" even in British English. is "Wikipedians are a pedantic group of people" an acceptable sentence to you? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Are a group" is fine. It was "are a member" that looked wrong to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But your fix doesn't work. "The Minnesota Wild are members of the NHL" is simply untrue (actually, I have no idea whether or not it is true - I am assuming that the underlying idea, that the team is a member, is true. But I doubt that the individual members of the team are members of the League). --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]