Language desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 21[edit]

The old woman shed turbid tears.[edit]

I came across a sentence which goes "The old woman shed turbid tears." I doubt if "turbid" can qualify "tears". Is there any other adjective that can naturally form a phrase with "tears", meaning the tears are not clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.213.158 (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turbid may describe tears if there is a medical condition affecting the lacrimal glands.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudy? - Karenjc (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, the phrase is not very elegant, but "turbid tears" certainly seems to be used poetically. The first Ghit (and there are several non-medical ones) is this one. "He wiped the blood off his face with the sleeve of his shirt, looked at his sleeve and, heaving a sigh, maintained silence, and when he went past Foma with the hand-harrows, two big, turbid tears were trembling on his face, near the bridge of his nose, and Foma noticed them."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If alliteration were the writer's goal, there are very few choices (I've looked). If not, maybe "murky tears" would fit the bill. I also like Karenjc's "cloudy tears". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the phrase "milky tears" a few times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should a church for protestants be called Protestant church or Christian church?[edit]

Should a church for Protestants be called protestant church or Christian church or both can do? Can Christian church also mean Catholic church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.213.158 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A church for Protestants can be called a Protestant Church or a Christian Church in the same way that a person from Los Angeles can be called a Californian or an American. A Catholic Church is a Christian Church but not all Christian Churces are Catholic Churches, just as a person from Texas is American but not Californian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are so many different branches of Protestantism, ideally a Protestant Church should be called after its specific denomination if it has one, e.g. Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, Methodist Church, Baptist Church, etc. It all depends on how specific you want and need to be in the particular situation. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat redundant to say Christian church, since a church is Christian by definition (at least according to Wikipedia). I would only use the word Christian if there was a possibility of confusion with some non-Christian "church".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Scientology and the Native American Church aren't Christian, but in those names church refers to the organization. I don't know if those groups call any buildings churches. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the accurate answers by Jeffro and Angr: People do not usually say "Protestant church" unless there is some reason to call it out as being Protestant (e.g., in areas such as Northern Ireland where there is conflict between Catholics and Protestants). People normally would say "Christian church" or leave off the usually redundant "Christian" and just say "church." John M Baker (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This varies regionally. In my region (southeastern Massachusetts), probably most Christians are Catholics, so you might refer to a "Protestant church" to indicate that it is not a church of the predominant denomination. People here identify themselves in conversation as "Protestants" more often than as members of a specific Protestant denomination, since those denominations are relatively obscure to the Catholic majority. The same might be true in other predominantly Catholic regions. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, usage varies widely by region, for example, where I live "Church" (without further qualification) usually implies "Anglican", but this is no longer true of most of the UK. Does anyone know the predominant usage in China (where the OP possibly lives)? Dbfirs 22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The predominant usage in Chinese is explained here:

"中文语汇“基督教”一词时常是专指新教，这是中文目前的特有现象。"

"In Chinese, 'Christianity' alone usually refers to Protestantism, which is so far a peculiarity of Chinese." --Bowlhover (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Officially sanctioned Chinese Protestant Churches are regulated through the China Christian Council. Officially sanctioned Catholic Churches in China are regulated through the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. There are also unsanctioned home churches as well. --Jayron32 22:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, where are you? In the NE of the US, "Christian" means Protestant, as opposed to "Catholic". The phrase "Christian church" is not redundant, because it contrasts with "Catholic church". Even Catholics speak that way, as if they weren't Christians too. If that's what you mean, it's definitely wrong for us on WP. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I mean, if I ask where the nearest Christian church is, and the nearest church is Catholic, that's the right one, right? Conversely, if a church is not Catholic, won't the enquirer want to know if it's Episcopalian, Lutheran, Baptist, snake-handler, or whatever? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP geolocates to Beijing. No such user (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, kwami? I've never heard that distinction made, either in the Deep South of my upbringing, the Miami of my adolescence, or the Milwaukee of my adult life. I've never even encountered it in any books, that I can recall. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, and I lived in Massachusetts for 17 years. John M Baker (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too am skeptical of Kwami's claim. I can't imagine anyone in the U.S., least of all a Roman Catholic, saying something like "The Catholic church is on the corner of Main and Elm, and the Christian church is two blocks north of that." At best, if someone said that, I'd assume they were referring to one of the churches of the Restoration Movement that prefers to call itself simply "Christian Church" (see Christian churches and churches of Christ). Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that generally, one should specify which Protestant denomination, as Angr says above, some churches catering for ex-patriots seem to embrace all Protestant denominations without aligning themselves to any particular one. I'm thinking of the American Church in London and also the French Protestant Church of London. The Shanghai Community Church seems to operate in a similar way and I'm sure that there are others. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean expatriates... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That's expatriates. Those of us who live abroad are not (necessarily) former patriots! The American Church here in Berlin also embraces all mainline Protestant denominations, but its pastors are always ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and they also follow the ELCA liturgy and use the ELCA hymnbook. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I don't know what I was thinking and neither did my spell checker. Alansplodge (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Kwami. If someone asked me "Are there any Christian churches around here ?" (and it were clear he wasn't Hindu or Jewish or such) I would assume he meant a Protestatnt, and not a Catholic church. The question is one of contrast. Why say "Christian" in the first place? If the question were non-denominational, the questioner would just say (normally for the NE US), are there any churches around here. Nor would a Catholic normally ask such a question. They'd say "church" or "Catholic church". Using the term Christian in this way is a polite way of saying non-Catholic. This usage is also common in things like school trips, summer camp, and the like where students staying away from home on Sundays are offered the choice of a Catholic mass, or a Christian service. Catholicism is by far the largest sect in the US, while Protestant churches largely have in common one thing, their dislike for Catholic practices. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snakker du norsk?[edit]

Hvordan kan jeg forbedre min evne til å forstå folk som snakker norsk? Det er ikke vanskelig å lære å lese og skrive, men når folk snakker det er som regel for fort for meg. Count Iblis (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try watching Norwegian videos at youtube? For example, watching a Norwegian movie subtitled in English, and go over the same passage (let's say 2-3 minutes) over and over again until you can follow the details of the conversation. --Soman (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to do that. I had hoped to pick up a bit more of the language in Norway, but that didn't work because I understood too little of what people were saying. It is somehow a lot more difficult to understand than other languages like French, German, Spanish, etc. when you have similar knowledge of these languages compared to Norwegian. Count Iblis (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that there is a huge variation between Norwegian dialects. Newsreaders on TV are allowed to use dialect too. Newsreaders from the east of Norway tend to use normalized Bokmål, which is the Norwegian you'll usually learn if you take lessons. The problem is, few people (except politicians) speak like that unless they're holding a public speech or something like that. Many learners of Norwegian find the spoken dialect of the eastern part of Norway, including Oslo, particularly difficult to understand because it's fast and sloppily pronounced, syllables are dropped, and they find it difficult to hear where one word ends and the next begins. --NorwegianBlue^talk 17:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.186.78.4 (talk) [reply]

A Norwegian friend once told me, "All Norwegians speak ten languages, and nine of them are Norwegian." Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read about an incident several decades ago where a TV weatherman in Norway insisted on pronouncing the word for "snow" with a pronunciation which many viewers perceived as going beyond ordinary Bokmål into imitation Danish, which stirred up public controversy... AnonMoos (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup: no:Sigurd Smebye. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.65.217 (talk) [reply]

Which is correct?[edit]

Which is the more proper way to write the following: a. He was healed in April 2013; or b. He was healed in April of 2013.

72.16.227.66 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct, though "a" is more common. In some contexts, "b" might be appropriate, particularly if you were going on to say something about other months in 2013. Dbfirs 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "of" is used, the word "the" tends to precede the name of the month: He was healed in the April of 2013. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps down under, Jack, but I can't recall ever seeing that in the States. Deor (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Deor? Examples abound online. Here are just a few: Until the April of that year; In the April of 1853; In the April of 1713; … by the June of 1940; in the June of 1870; before the February of 1949; in the February of 1959. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a bit archaic - all those examples are 50 years or older. I would never say or write "the April". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even later examples tend to refer to events that happened a long time ago. But here's a contemporary usage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This usage is very rare or nonexistent in American English today. Marco polo (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They finally hung me in the Spring of '25/But I am still alive. Not exactly the same usage, I suppose. But I bring it up just because, well, mostly because it's such a good song. --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe b is very rare in in American-English. I wouldn't say b was very common in British-English, although many people prefer it - but we seem to have adopted the American-style shorthand. On a similar note, even the BBC has started saying, "A man was killed Tuesday" - which sounds horrible to me; instead of, "A man was killed on Tuesday. The former is just plain wrong as far as I am concerned, but that's probably 'coz I'm an old fuddy-duddy. Every time I hear an advert for a movie say "Out on DVD Friday", I wonder if "DVD Friday" is some new bank-holiday I am unaware of - somewhere between Shrove Tuesday and Good Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think b is not uncommon in colloquial American English, though it doesn't occur very often in more formal or written American English, particularly in a business setting. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]