Language desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

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.

July 10[edit]

How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian?[edit]

How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian? Futurist110 (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "How do you render it in Cyrillic script ?" ? SinisterLefty (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Rather, I mean translating it. I mean, Matthew could be rendered in Cyrillic script in a way that preserves its English pronunciation, or it could be translated as Matvei/Matvey. In turn, I was wondering if Shitavious could be translated as something such as Shitavei/Shitavey in Russian. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Шитавей in the Cyrillic script. Futurist110 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting my posts. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Шитавиоус is the correct translation. Willbb234 (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was Шитавиус? Also, in any case, I am looking for a translation rather than a transcription--and No, the two aren't the same thing--as my Matthew example above shows. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: It's a transcription, not translation – it represents (or rather approximates) pronunciation of the word instead of its meaning... --CiaPan (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was hoping for a translation rather than a transcription here. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was that error sufficient reason for you to delete the IP's answer? --Viennese Waltz 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viennese Waltz: Nope. --CiaPan (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please use {{Reply to}} to notify users to whom you reply (unless you want to show you don't care if they see your replies).

My response was Шитавиоус, as has now been accepted above. Three times I had to add this. I believe this to be one of the few problems with Wikipedia, zealots feeling it within their power to delete another's work and finding small print justification for doing so despite the overarching justification for the work. Rant over. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key question will be whether the OP accepts it as a useful answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a translation rather than a transcription, though. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. So the next question is, what on God's green earth does that word mean? And I would argue that names like Ivan and Pavel are "Russianizations" of John and Paul rather than "translations". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me! Ask Shitavious's parents: https://herald-review.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/shitavious-cook-gets-years-in-shooting-pleas/article_280e78cd-3b32-510b-a980-6ea4f33b9a49.html Futurist110 (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, how do you know there even would be a Russian translation? Maybe you could search Russian news media and see if any of them covered that story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be - and I certainly hope it is - unique even in English, its language of origin. To come up with a Matthew/Mатвей (Matvey)-type correspondence in Russian would presuppose that this onomastic atrocity has been accorded recognition in Russian news media. I cannot imagine that to be the case, as the name causes only anglophone eyebrows to be raised, and so it has no news value in any other language. But if you can track down a reference to this story from a Russian news outlet, then use whatever spelling they use. If you want to just make something up for whatever private purposes you have, I'd be more inclined to just transliterate the name as it stands - Шитавиус - rather than be guided by the irrelevant Mатвей. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So “ask S.'s parents what, if anything, the name means” is a hidden part of the original question. You could have done that yourself before asking us to do so. —Tamfang (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semicolon[edit]

I posted this question on the talk page of Semicolon but got no responses:

I frequently see usages of the semicolon such this one from Dumbing down:

Dumbing-down varies according to subject matter, and usually involves the diminishment of critical thought, by undermining intellectual standards within language and learning; thus trivializing meaningful information, culture, and academic standards, as in the case of popular culture.

Here the semicolon comes before a non-clause (or at least a non-independent clause, depending on whether "clause" is meant to include non-finite expressions). I see this a lot in Wikipedia, and I see it sometimes in the respected British magazine The Economist.

But this article only mentions the usage in serial lists of things that themselves contain commas, and the usage before a second independent clause. Is the usage before a non-clause or non-independent clause valid in all British styles, for example in The Economist's style guide? And, should we add that usage to this article? Loraof (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that looks wrong to me. I would only use the semi-colon where the clause following it contains a verb. --Viennese Waltz 15:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, it tends to be used when forcing what should be two sentences together into one run-on sentence; hot weather we're having here today, BTW. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be an example? Because, while it's grammatical enough, it makes me think of 'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously', and in general feels off.

Yes, that's my point, While you can use a semicolon to jam two random sentences together into one, you shouldn't. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks perfectly fine to me. While I cannot speak for "all British styles", I do note that BNC shows 248 instances of "; THUS" (semicolon space "thus" [uppercase, lowercase, or any mixture thereof]). There are only so many hours in the day, and my interest in punctuation is limited; thus my lack of enthusiasm for investigating further. However, I'll uneducatedly guess that these 248 will provide relevant examples from a variety of sources. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine when the semicolon is followed by a clause of the form 'thus, a does b'; this is not one of those. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 11:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I see it sometimes in The Economist. Does anyone have the Economist's style guide? Loraof (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Though”[edit]

This question is about the usage of "though" as an adverb, not as a conjunction, in standard registers. Wiktionary defines adverbial "though" as "however". All of the following are generally considered correct (although some would proscribe the third one):

(1)I did think so, however.

(2)However, I did think so.

(3)However I did think so.

But now replace "however" with "though":

(4)I did think so, though.

(5)Though, I did think so.

(6)Though I did think so.

The first one is fine. I suspect that the second one is considered non-standard. The third one also strikes me as unacceptable (partly because it's a garden path sentence where the reader might initially expect a conjunctive usage).

(a) Is there a name for this usage standard whereby an adverb can be used only in more restricted ways than its synonym?

(b) Are there other examples? Loraof (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to avoid using "Though" as the first word, using "However" there, or putting "though" later in the sentence. Not sure what rule this is, but it sounds a lot better that way. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid "though" altogether, use "although" or "however" instead. —DextralRighty,aka:2606:A000:1126:28D:84CB:D08E:899F:D254 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Although" has the problem that it doesn't work at the end of sentence, though. So, they each have their place. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I won't refute what I learned from my mother regarding proper application of English words -- including what words to avoid.

—

I'm sure that The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language has relevant material. (The book is excellent value for its non-trivial price.) ¶ (b) Yes. Just one off the top of my head: with the meaning of excess: "The dessert was excessively/too sweet"; however, "They sweeten their desserts excessively/*too." -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]