Language desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

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 16[edit]

audio[edit]

Can you record the pronunciation of the word "cà rốt" in Vietnamese please ? Fête (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

volume[edit]

Can you turn up the volume of the file File:Fr-Normandie-Marseille.ogg and File:Zh-ruǎn-alt.ogg please ? Because I can't do it in my computer. Fête (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Es:grupera[edit]

What can "grupera" mean in Spanish? It occurred in a phrase in XEAN-AM, which I loosely translated; the sentence talked about the station broadcasting a "programación variada de música pop, grupera, y noticias". Google Translate renders it as "pop music, banda and News", which doesn't make much sense, and putting just "grupera" into Translate gets a response of "pillion". If you know the answer, please just edit the article; I've commented out "grupera" because I don't want to remove it and because I don't want to include a Spanish term in English text. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you didn't try google, the first hit you get is our article grupera. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went to es:grupera and got nothing; I didn't even bother looking here, because I figured that es:wp would cover anything that we would. Thanks for the pointer. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The es version is called Género grupero. In an ideal world, es:grupera would redirect there. Things appear not to be ideal (but that's OR and can safely be ignored). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at the Spanish help desk for advice on whether this would be a good redirect, but it was painful — I took two classes over the summer on reading Spanish, but composition wasn't part of the course, so it took me five minutes to write three sentences :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courage, mon brave! All great writers struggle over their words. And that's just in their native language. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bromyard[edit]

I read in this entry : « Bromyard was the site of an internment camp, where the Irish nationalist future Lord Mayor of Cork and hunger striker Terence MacSwiney were both interned and married.» What about married in this sentence ? Dhatier (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that they made a happy couple! Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be saying they were married to each other, but I suspect they really mean they each married others. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were the same person. All things considered, it's rather a poor sentence that needs improvement (and, I notice, a reference for the information). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cucumber Mike, you've got the point. Dhatier (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very funny. Alansplodge (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they were the same person, the verb were should be was. Or am I missing a joke? μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rather a poor sentence" (Cucumber Mike's observation above) covers a multitude of sins. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Carne related to Karma?[edit]

--Inspector (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "as in Chili con carne", then the answer is no, according to AHD 3d edition -- karma comes from an IE root kʷer- "to make", while the Latin carn- stem comes from an IE root sker- or ker- (with s mobile) originally meaning "to cut". AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The word karma comes from the PIE root *kwer-, "to shape, make, give form". The word carne in the sense of flesh comes from the root *(s)ker-, "to cut". You should see if you can borrow or purchase Calvert Watkins's etymological dictionary. Here's a link to a searchable edition of it at Amazon. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Puhvel, J., Hittite Etymological Dictionary, vol. 4, Words Beginning with K (De Gruyter, 1997), p. 216:

"The overall similarity of *k^wer- [...] to *(s)ker led to Sturtevant's postulation [...]that IE *ker(s)- [sic] is but a delabialized variant of the *k^wer- preserved in Anatolian, brought on by dissimilatory loss of initial labiovelarity in certain extended derivatives with labial [...] But the very fact that Hittite preserves kuer-, kuers-, iskar-, kars-, and kart- is strong contraindication and underlines the discreteness of *k^wer- 'carve, crop' and *(s)ker- 'clip' in Indo-European.

For Sturtevant's view, Puhvel cites: [1] and his Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language (1933), pp. 119-120 and the revised edition of that (1953), pp. 46 & 56. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands are or is?[edit]

"The Netherlands are a country of beautiful churches." OR "The Netherlands is a country of beautiful churches."

Thank you. CBHA (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the usage in our article? And I thought the churches there were rather plain. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Our article uses "is". As for the beauty of the churches, given the context the author of the quote is likely to have erred on the side of sentiment over accuracy.

They go on to say that the people are "very religious". I wonder if this is true.

CBHA (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch aren't particularly religious. About 50-60% identifies with a religion, but many of these are non-practicing. There are some impressive churches, mainly in the south, because Roman Catholicism is larger there. Protestant churches are quite plain, as μηδείς pointed out, mostly because luxury and splendour are frowned upon in the reformed/calvinist tradition, which was historically dominant in the Netherlands. - Lindert (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some strongly-conservative Calvinists, such as the supporters of the Reformed Political Party, but the majority of the population of the Netherlands do not seem to be particularly devout. Pope John Paul II's 1985 trip to the Netherlands, made after he uncompromisingly articulated some positions which the majority of the people there did not agree with, turned out to be a semi-fiasco, with protests and much general derision[2]... --- AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When "on the fence", you can look at the rest of the sentence. Since the singular "country" is used, then the singular form "is" should be used. However, you could have said "The Netherlands are many lands combined into one nation.", then the plural "lands" goes with the plural "are". StuRat (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that last bit holds water, Stu. :) Australia, Canada, Russia and other countries were created from "many lands", but we'd never say "Australia are many lands combined into one nation". The verb would still be "is", agreeing with "Australia", not with "many lands". I believe "The Netherlands", despite appearances, is implicitly singular. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "when on the fence". The Australia case is already clear. The US is another which could go either way, depending on the rest of the sentence: "The United States are states of varying sizes..." or "The United States is a nation...". StuRat (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not convinced. How does this sound to you: Australia is many lands combined into one nation. The United States are also many lands combined into one nation? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only part that sounds wrong to me is the Aussie part. My fix: "Australia consists of many lands...". StuRat (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also say that 'The Netherlands' it is short for 'Kingdom of the Netherlands', although this would technically include overseas territories. The Dutch themselves just use the singular 'Nederland' (i.e. Netherland), in the same vein as 'England' or 'Finland'. - Lindert (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Holland is a country of beautiful churches." No argument then. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you're showing your age, HiLo. Holland "is a region in the western part of the Netherlands. The term Holland is also frequently used as a pars pro toto to refer to the whole of the Netherlands. This usage is generally accepted but disliked by part of the Dutch population, especially in the other parts of the Netherlands." -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Netherlands have regions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Provinces of the Netherlands. Alansplodge (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the Netherlands has regions. ;) Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...so the Nether regions ? StuRat (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Holland is also part of East Anglia, in England. ;)--TammyMoet (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite large parts of Holland in England, in fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison purposes: our articles say Netherlands is, Phillipines is, Marshall Islands is, Canary Islands is, but United States Virgin Islands are. British Virgin Islands can't decide, using both is and were. The Solomon Islands form, covers and is. (Note however that in the case of islands an author could be using ...Islands is in referring to the country but ...Islands are in referring to them as a bunch of islands.) Duoduoduo (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The politics of these places are probably very complicated, as is the economics. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dash and percent[edit]

Which one of the two options is typographically correct?

10–20%
10%–20%

There was no information on that neither in Percent sign, nor in Dash. --Leyo 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own style (MOS:PERCENT, fifth bullet point) calls for the use of the first option. Other folks may do things differently. Deor (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both are correct. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there a (non-Wikipedia) reference for that? --Leyo 19:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it depends on context. Both 10 and 10% are quantities and mean different things. Consider "They have 200 students, and we believe only 10–20% of them are women" could be interpreted as meaning anywhere between 10 and 40 women. Whereas 10%–20% is unambiguous, if you wanted to play safe.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That example seems a litle contrived, Shanta. Or it would require a very unusual context, with punctuation to match. I doubt that anyone would ever write "10-20%" and expect readers to understand the 10 is an absolute number but the 20% is a percentage of some other number. It would be both written and understood as a range of percentages. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Product X was preferred by only 10–20% of the 50 participants" could be confusing, particularly if the dash were spaced. Warofdreams talk 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, rule 9.18, the percentage sign should be repeated in a range. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So some style manuals prefer one and some prefer the other. That's for writing. Note that for speaking, people would probably always say "ten to twenty percent." Duoduoduo (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]