Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 20

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 20

Bad spelling

Why is it many people have difficulty spelling even quite simple words? Although I appreciate many wikipedia editors might not have English as their first language, or may suffer with dyslexia, or people might choose to spell some words a particular way for a variety of cultural reasons (eg. text messaging), I am somewhat alarmed at the poor standard of spelling exhibited on the ref desks, particularly by teenagers. For example, in this recent question, the questioner made at least 20 obvious spelling errors in his three original paragraphs and numerous punctuation and grammar errors (in particular there's not capital letter or apostrophe in the entire piece). Are the basic rules of spelling and grammar no longer taught at school? Is correct use of spelling and grammar no longer considered important? Are the youth of today not corrected when they make these errors? Am I just a pedant? Astronaut (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me give this a positive spin, and say that now, in the Age of the Internet, people who are only marginally literate are encouraged to participate in reading and writing, who, in former generations, wouldn't have bothered. A generation ago there were probably many factory workers who were only marginally literate, but most people never saw their writings, if any, so this was largely hidden. Now, however, we see their writings on the Internet, so it seems like the standard of literacy has decreased, while, in reality, it's just no longer hidden. I'm also hopeful that as such people engage in reading and writing, their literacy will slowly improve. StuRat (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is undermined by the general policy of not correcting others' spelling, grammar and punctuation. It's an understandable policy; but it also means writers get no feedback, and hence little opportunity to improve. The chances of them just noticing the correct forms in other places, and immediately adopting them, seem pretty remote to me. Because they've seen the correct forms zillions of times, and still make new and more "creative" errors. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to correct an error for the author of that error to learn. If you merely repeat the word, spelled correctly, in your reply, they should get the idea. Also, when it's a search term, I do indeed correct their spelling, as this is required to find the right answer (although Google has some ability to handle a "near miss"). StuRat (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

an sumtimz we no wat wer doin an jess lurvterplyaran wifda sterfferfuhn annottereyety. Rippiinder rulz, mite, =) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a wide spectrum between perfect spellers and illiterates. It's not just people who have never been given the opportunity to learn to read and write. Lots of people in industrialized nations learn to read and write at a level that is sufficient to make it through the system and then don't read anything but the morning headline and only write their signature. It's not just factory workers either. (OR I've met a concert pianist, an engineer a business owner and a banker who all got by.) Producing a post with good spelling also requires other skills, though. Typing demands manual dexterity and good coordination. Most of us are trying to type faster than we should be in the interest of error free results. People who type more regularly have "automated" certain sequences. After years of typing "refunded" we may end up typing that instead of "refueled". The purpose of posting is to get a message across, not to impress others with our spelling ability. So the focus is on the message. This also inhibits error detection, though. There have been many studies recently on the mind's ability to fool itself. If we are sure there should be only one "the" in this sentence we will just not see the second one that slipped in. Exposure to new words is also usually limited to certain channels. Very rarely does one hear and read an unfamiliar word at the same time. Looking up words you know how to say is not always a successful strategy. "An Sighklopeedeeuh" just doesn't get you anywhere fast. Just like you get people who mumble, stutter or have a strange accent we're going to have to live with imperfect posts. _Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can accept that people make typing errors, etc., when writing, but it is possible to go back and correct your mistakes here. We aren't writing longhand, in ink, after all. So, I must conclude that people who don't correct their work judge it not to be worth their time to do so. I suppose if I was sending a text message telling people to get out of a building that's going to explode, I might not bother with spelling and grammar, but I normally have the time to correct my errors, so do so. Those who have the time and yet choose not to do so are an interesting case, I'd like to study their motivations. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I used to reread my writing and fix errors before posting to wikipedia, but these days my life is so chaotic, busy, and unpredictable (mainly due to having two very young kids) I often begin to write something for wikipedia only to be interrupted in a major way. When that happens I sometimes cancel my post. If I am basically done writing but have not proofread yet, I might post anyway--at least if it is for talk pages or the reference desk. So I reckon that for some people, like me, it isn't that proofreading isn't "worth the time", rather than there just isn't enough time. Often the choice is between posting without proofreading or not posting at all. Pfly (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but after you return from cleaning the exploded frog from the microwave oven, do you then proofread and correct your last post, or do you call it "good enough" and go onto posting something new ? StuRat (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, yes. Maybe often, even. Also, around here it's exploding slugs. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The original questioner may have thought that his improbable question about pigs -- since when do farmers need to ask about their livestock at Wikipedia? -- would be enhanced by some stereotypically uneducated prose style. The whole thing looks to me like a come-on.

If I was one of the young folks, I'd spell just like I wonted to "epattay lay boorjwa", I meen 4 the fun of shokking the old fokes. (Kids write the durndest things!)

Incidentally, you talk of grammar mistakes but you don't give a single example. Lack of an apostrophe is far less likely to be a grammatical than an orthographical mistake; genuine mistakes of grammar (other than slips of the tongue or fingers) by normal native speakers (as opposed to aphasics) are I think vanishingly rare. Morenoodles (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In Shakespeare's time, nobody paid any attention to spelling. You pretty much spelt words the way they sounded to you, and nobody cared. It was only in the 17th century that printers (thanks to technical advances) stopped fiddling with the spellings of words to get the spacing of their lines right. That, and the appearance of dictionaries in the 18th century, were the main developments behind the uniformization of spelling, which in turn set the stage for our modern obsession with it as a mark of education. It's hard for us now to imagine a society indifferent to people's ability to spell, and which preferred to just get on with things. I agree with Lisa that we should save time by limiting careful revision of our writing to articles and not talk page posts. Joeldl (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "...in particular there's no capital letter..." and not "...in particular there's not capital letter..." in your question, right? ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In his excellent The English Language (1985), Robert Burchfield says "An almost unqualified belief in a one-to-one relationship between most words in the language and the way they are spelt has been maintained since at least 1755 when Dr Johnson's Dictionary was published. Before 1700 fixedness of spelling was not insisted on with anything like the same rigidity." (That's on p. 146 in my 1985 edition of Burchfield.) But rather than 18th century dictionaries being the trigger, I've always supposed it was the Authorized King James Version of the Bible which began to create the modern notion of correct and incorrect spelling, orchestrated by the clerical dons and schoolmasters for whom the scriptures set the standard. Nevertheless, even today there are still hundreds of 'acceptable' variant spellings, and they take up over four hundred pages in The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (1981). Strawless ^(talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been hinted at previously, we can't assume that bad spellers don't know how to spell properly, they may know how but not choose to do so (as in e.e. cummings' lack of capitalization). In this sense "correcting" spelling can move beyond just providing info, and into providing censure for "unacceptable spelling".

TEACHER: "What's the difference between ignorance and apathy ?"

JOHNNY: "I don't know and I don't care !"

TEACHER: "Very good, Johnny !" StuRat (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that my keyboard is much, much worse at spelling and punctuation than I am (I suspect that this is because it was designed by a sadistic lunatic). I also find it much harder to spot typos on a computer screen than I do in printed material. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's from the same naughty keyboard school as mien. There's also informal conversation (email, refdesk, chatrooms, etc). I like the idea of nnot being judged according to spelling, very much! Would the richness of language flow more lusciously without it? sometimes, I think it does. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My thought on this is that spelling is an important part of language, but more important than spelling is effectively creating an argument that can be easily understood. Too many people nowadays worry about spelling, and English teachers (in the United States) worry too much to teach their students to spell everything correctly and forget to teach them how to effectively express a point. Take this as an example: The world of peace and war is made up of arguments, which are always fought with words. Words are like the spear or the rifle in the battlefield. It doesn't matter how smooth, large, or rough the bullet or the spear's tip are, because the only important thing is for it to strike and kill. However, like spelling, the smoother or better made the bullet or spear's tip are, the easier and faster it will be able to strike its mark. I hope you find this opinion plausible.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glorious, [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] -- ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of new age writings that are almost totally devoid of content, just strings of meaningless words strung together. They can talk about matrices and crystal emanations and cosmic string vibrations for hours and never actually say anything. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the point of communication is ... well, to communicate. If the basic message gets through, you've done your basic job. But there's always a secondary (but not necessarily any less important) message with communication. In speaking, the bulk of the meaning is conveyed by non-verbals (voice tone etc). In writing, a badly spelled/punctuated/formatted/laid out text will convey a lot to the reader, apart from whatever the meaning of the text itself is. It will show whether the writer takes care to create a good impression, checks their work, has a professional approach, and would be a good ambassador for the company (if the reader is a prospective employer). Sentences such as "Your a company id like to work for" show that the writer does not grasp the difference between the basic concepts of verbs (you're) and pronouns (your), and verbs (I'd) and nouns (id), so it doesn't augur well for their ability to handle important things such as company mergers and investments. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that somebody who writes id has done it because they don't know the difference between nouns and verbs. That aside, you're probably right in that correct spelling and punctuation have become socially important, so people are likely to take it that way. But, if, for example, what they wrote was handwritten, would we be paying serious attention to the quality of their calligraphy? That would be more typical of past eras, or other cultures. I'm completely incapable of writing as nicely as they did in, say, the U.S. constitution. I think I'm quite typical of our time in that respect. It's very much a social convention. Joeldl (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thiking of the Declaration of Independence. Joeldl (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but that makes it sound as if the social aspects of communication are somehow less important than some other aspects (linguistic, perhaps). If communication isn't primarily about interacting with society, what's it about? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agreed that you might be thought of as sloppy or even stupid if your spelling was wrong, so that was an acknowledgment that this particular social aspect of communication is important. My point is that the fact that good spelling is viewed as so important socially is strongly associated with our particular time and culture. Realizing that there is nothing inevitable about it is good, because it allows us to reflect critically on whether this is desirable in a society. Joeldl (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Had things like Wikipedia and computers never existed, one could reflect in such a way. But imagine if the software that enables us all to have these online discussions, or our cars to go, or aircraft to fly without falling out of the sky, or being able to cram even more things into our shopping trolleys and get them through the checkout quickly, or talk on our mobile/cell phones, etc, was written with little regard for accuracy in programming. If the need for accurate spelling wasn't inevitable before, it's definitely become so now. OK, in other contexts you can generally get through your day without having spelled a single word correctly, so in that sense it's not necessarily a matter of life and death. But neither is good manners; or dressing appropriately; or general professionalism. Ignore those at your peril. We all use language, all the time, so why shouldn't general expectations of at least a minimum standard, and preferably a desire for excellence, apply here as with all other aspects of life? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that correct spelling is important in computer programs, but I think that's a separate issue. My point is that whether or not spelling is an important component of what we consider the "quality" of our language is a matter of convention. Also, I don't think spelling is really comparable to moral issues like good manners any more than good handwriting is. Joeldl (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling is a moral issue. Bad spelling (or handwriting, for that matter) means other people have to spend more time and effort understanding your words. If you are spelling badly because you don't want to spend time and effort yourself proofreading, then you're just being selfish. Algebraist 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I would say that good spelling comes naturally to some people, but not to others. For bad spellers writing for a small audience, the effort required is likely to be disproportionately large compared to the practical benefit to their readers. When people make an effort in those circumstances, I think wanting to avoid seeming stupid is usually a much bigger factor than courtesy. (I'm not saying that bad spellers are stupid; I'm saying that the stereotype exists and has real consequences.) For example, if we're honest, I think we'll admit that writing it's for its is more likely to have adverse consequences for a job applicant than writing thr for the, even though the latter error is much more likely to impede understanding. Joeldl (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Joeldl, consider then, if you will, "you're" and "your"; "their", they're" and "there", and other pitfalls for the layman (dare I say, illiterate?) writer. Me, I find a person that confuses those is just plain old stupid. And I'm not even a native speaker. No matter how powerfull or important the message they want to get across may be, confusing "there" and "they're" just blanks it all out for me. Call me a purist, but I just don't belive in linguistic relativism, is all. TomorrowTime (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick: Correct and Proper Usage of Source Language?

Hello once again. I was wondering if you could please evaluate the following sentences in regards to the following criteria:

• The sentence is placed in the article bicycle kick, under the section entitled "Peruvian Claim."
• The sentence is meant to express a common neutral viewpoint of two people of important positions.

Quick Background: The "Peruvian Claim" section only deals with the claim of invention of the "bicycle kick" in the nation of Peru. Just like the other section, this section is supposed to provide its own neutral views on the story.

This is the sentence I am proposing (Short and to the point):

As noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC), the claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is nothing new.

However, this is the sentence proposed by another Wikipedist (a little longer):

As noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC), the claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is nothing new even and that it is recognized as chilena by the rest of the world.

Nonetheless, the second sentence is, in my opinion, attempting to create a dispute. By stating that "it is recognized as chilena by the rest of the world," it is making an "exceptional claim" that is not necessary in the section. In addition, the sentence proposed by the other Wikipedist has bad grammar and I really cannot quite understand what it attempts to state.

Could anybody please provide their opinion on the matter? Which is the more grammatically correct sentence that fits in better with the section "Peruvian Claim"? Once again, thank you in advance. Remember to take note that this time I am not asking for you to fix the sentences, but rather to tell me which one you think is most appropiate and neutral.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an opinion in response, suggesting getting to the point sooner rather than later because it is easier to read this way. I'd say The claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is not new, as noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC). It is even recognised worldwide as "chilena". (this last needs a reference)

"Even" is used for contrast and emphasis, going from the local to the global, but using "nothing" labours the point unlike "not". I like to get my information without wading through a whole lot of authoritah before finding the point. Others will likely express their opinions more technically but that's it from me. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, I saw it last season. It's a very flashy move. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew with certainty that I could count on the editors here. Thanks. One more thing, though. Let's say I use this sentence:

The claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is not new, as noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC).

However, in this sentence I have left out: "It is even recognised worldwide as 'chilena'"

Would this be taking the previous statement "Out of Context." A simple yes or no answer, although you can elaborate on it (if you wish), would do just fine.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean denying a context to the single statement, no, not to me. It seems optional. If you want to add the second for balance, I suggest "... even though it is recognised worldwide as 'chilena' ". Julia Rossi (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what he means to say. It doesn't seem to be necessary to include that last part. That part you excluded would also, probably, cause controversy.-Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to the two of you.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] -- Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the individual being quoted, Harold Mayne-Nichols, never agrees to the bicycle kick being invented in Peru. His statements from http://www.elperiodicodemexico.com/nota.php?sec=Deportes&id=55799%7Ctitle%C2%BFChilena follows:

""El primero en realizar esta acción fue (NDLR: en 1914) un jugador de Talcahuano (500 km al sur de Santiago), pero que los peruanos se atribuyan el origen no es nuevo. En todo caso, ellos la llaman chalaca y en el resto del mundo se conoce como chilena. Por algo será", reseñó."

The literal translation is:

"The first person to realize this action was (Ramon Unzaga in 1914) a player from Talcahuano (500 km from the south of Santiago). but that Peruvians attribute the origin as their own is nothing new. In any case, they call it the chalaca and the rest of the world knows it as the chilena."

Simply including "The claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is not new, as noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC)." is taking his statement out of context and suggests that Mayne-Nichols agrees to the Peruvian claim which he does not because he declares that it was first performed in Chile.

Harold-Mayne Nichols should not even be included in the Peruvian claim section as a neutral viewpoint because he has stated that he is not impartial with his stance. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement does not seem to be taken out of context. I once had a similar problem to this when I was writing one of my papers, but I was told that the statement would only be taken out of context if it was excluding a crucial part of the overall statement. Mr. Mayne-Nicholls clearly states that he knows that the Peruvians have been claiming the move as theirs. There is no context problem here. I noticed this statement in the Chile section, "In late 2006, Federación de Fútbol de Chile president and FIFA delegate Harold Mayne-Nicholls completely denied the existence of the chalaca and added that the chilena was invented in the Chilean city of Talcahuano in 1914." The only conflict I see here is that while one side states that he "completely denies" the move, in the other section he states that the claim of Peru "is not new." Yet, individually, both of these statements are correct and without need for change.--Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all points expressed by user "Friedrich," but I do not agree on the idea that it conflicts with the other statement in the article. The statement in the "Chilean Claim" helps to state the point of Nicholls, while the "Peruvian Claim" merely mentions a statement that he factually stated. Some people contradict themselves, and Nicholls is obviously no exception. First, he denies the "complete existance" of the chalaca, but later he states that the claim of Peru is very old.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that Mayne-Nichols is contradicting himself because he does not believe in the Peruvian claim story. Nichols realizing that Peruvians have their claim, yet not accepting it isn't a contradiction. Yes, he factually recognizes that there is a claim made by Peru. On the other hand, he also states that he does not believe in it by acknowledging the Chilean origin claim that he accepts.

For the sake of discussion and as an example, I could invent an item and offer it to the world and later on someone else can claim to have invented the same thing. I can acknowledge that the person has had a very long claim to having invented it and dismiss it at the same time, because I believe that I invented it. What makes the bicycle kick claim controversial is that no patent exists and never will. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You can use as many examples as you want, but it has been clarified that me using that sentence in the "Peruvian Claim" section is by no means taking the thing "out of context."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

languages [How to say "hello" in Saudi Arabia?]

how do you say hello in saudi arabian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolchurchman (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Arabic, but wikt:Hello translates "Hello" as marħában. Joeldl (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ahlan wa sahlan" is used as a greeting as well.--droptone (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You say Ahlan wa sahlan only when someone comes to your room or your country (literally something like "make it like your home and feel easy"). The standard greeting used throughout the Arabic world is "As-salaam ^Calaykum".--K.C. Tang (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article: As-Salamu Alaykum.

Also Lolchurhman, note that the language of Saudi Arabia is Arabic, (not saudi arabian). Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

True. There isn't even a Saudi Arabian dialect of Arabic; or rather, there isn't one Saudi Arabian dialect of Arabic. The three main dialects spoken there are Gulf Arabic, Hejazi Arabic, and Najdi Arabic. Whether they have different words for "hello" (and if so, what they are), I don't know. —Angr 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Arabic consists of many quite different dialects, and "Saudi Arabic" would be a plausible denotation of the dialect of Arabic spoken in Saudi Arabia. The trouble with this theory is that according to Arabic language#Dialects and descendants there is no such thing as a Saudi dialect, whereas the dialects spoken in Saudi Arabia include Gulf Arabic, Hejazi Arabic, Najdi Arabic, and Yemeni Arabic. — Emil J. 15:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation needed

Hello!

I need translation from Japanese to English:

Amette tanoshiine
Doko kara tomonaku futtekite itzumo
tanoshiku utatteru
Dakedo hitorigia utaenai
Nakayoshi koyoshide atzumatte
Yaneto isshyoni ton ton ton
Tzuchitto isshyoni pin pin pin
Hanato isshyoni shan shan shan
Minnato tanoshiku utatteru.

You can hear the song also at:

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=XmgKiioec1o

Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.88.82.94 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rain is amusing
Falling from out of nowhere up above
Always singing merrily
But (rain) cannot sing by itself
Get together with company (to sing)
Along with roof, “Ton, ton, ton”
Along with earth, “Pin, pin, pin”
Along with flowers, “Shan, shan, shan”
Rain is singing merrily with friends
Oda Mari (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

And now You can write in Japanese characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.88.82.94 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One comment: If "ton", "pin", and "shan" aren't words in Japanese, but just represent the sounds made by rain, perhaps this should somehow be noted in the translation, especially since "ton" and "pin" are common English words. Would putting them in quotation marks accomplish this ? StuRat (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

雨って、おもしろいね。Amette omoshiroine
どこからともなく、降ってくる。dokokaratomonaku futtekuru
いつも楽しく歌ってる。Itsumo tanosiku utatteru
だけど、ひとりじゃ歌えない。Dakedo hitorijya utaenai
仲良しこよしで集まって。Nakayoshi koyoshi de atsumatte
屋根といっしょにトン、トン、トン。Yaneto isshoni “Ton, ton, ton”
土といっしょにピン、ピン、ピン。Tsuchito isshoni “Pin, pin, pin”
花といっしょにシャン、シャン、シャン。Hanato isshoni “Shan, shan, shan”
みんなと楽しく歌ってる。Minnato tanoshiku utatteru
Oda Mari (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, StuRat, but when the words repeat like that they're already behaving like onomatopoeia and in context probably don't need special punctuation "clues" around them as well. (But now I see quotes as for speech, why not.) Julia Rossi (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between agree with/agree to?

I often get confused which one is a correct? Eg.

1. I agree with what he said.
2. I agree with to what he said.

--Sanguine learner ^talk 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They're the same - at least what you wrote is the same. Was that intentional? Astronaut (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not intentional! Goofed up! Sorry! ---Sanguine learner ^talk 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying,

1. I agree with what he said – the sense is that you both agree about something, ie, you have the same opinion or viewpoint.
2. I agree to what he said – is that you consent to do something that has been suggested by another person. Julia Rossi (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanguine learner ^talk 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's just it. Agree to is used with agreeing some proposal – we could even say some proposed action or inaction. Strawless ^(talk) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The wording also sometimes implies something about the power relationship between the two people. If you "agree with" someone, that sounds like you are equals, while "agreeing to" something can imply that they are in control, and you must do as they say. For example, a judge may ask if you will perform community service if given that instead of jail time, and you would "agree to" it, as opposed to "agreeing with" the judge. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Julia, Strawless and StuRat (nice point about the power relationship). Also Astronaut! --Sanguine learner ^talk 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One extra point: What Strawless wrote above, "Agree to is used with agreeing some proposal", is perfectly normal British English but is unidiomatic in American English. Americans cannot "agree a proposal", we "agree to a proposal". --Milkbreath (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. "Agree" cannot be used like "approve" in that context. Although, one could say simply "I agree" or "I approve", interchangeably. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. I might vote for (and thus agree to allow) prostitution, but that doesn't mean I approve of it. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

When I said "one could say", I meant there exist contexts in which this would be possible. It wouldn't apply in all contexts, though, and you've identified one where it wouldn't apply. The main point of my post was that you can say "I approve this recommendation", but not "I agree this recommendation" (or "I concur this recommendation") - whereas the person could have said just "I approve", "I agree" or "I concur". Adding an object to that, however, restricts the choice of verbs to "approve" - unless you opt for "agree with" (some say "agree to") or "concur with". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Being Anglo-Irish, I don't at all mind what Milkbreath says about 'British English'. But, Milkbreath, am I right in thinking that out there beyond the great Sargasso Sea you could say of a proposal "That's agreed", and not "That's agreed to"? Strawless ^(talk) 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you aright, yes. "So, that's agreed, then?" and "So, we're agreed?" or "So, we're all agreed?" are heard, none ever with "to". (Are you saying that you Anglo-Irish have retained a characteristic dialect? Must have made for some rough schooldays growing up in the haunts of the pookah.) --Milkbreath (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghost

The German word for ghost is Gespenst. Is this term used also in Danish (I mean, in official standard danish language)? If so, is it used in other languages such as Swedish, Norwegian...? --151.51.40.76 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are likely many German words for ghosts of various types, such as a poltergeist, or simply geist. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wiktionary entry for ghost [1] has Gespenst in German, Danish and Luxembourgish / Letzebergish. It is not listed under the translated terms used in Norwegian and Swedish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't recommend using Geist for 'ghost', except in Holy Ghost. Strawless ^(talk) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The usual term for 'ghost' in Danish/Norwegian/Swedish is Spøgelse/Spøkelse/Spöke. All related to English 'spook' and German 'spuk'. I can't think of any cognates to 'gespenst'. 'spirit' (geist) is Ånde/Ånd/Ande/Ande Danish/Bokmål/Nynorsk/Swedish --130.237.179.182 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, having looked it in a dictionary, yes, it is in fact an 'official' but uncommon Danish word (borrowed from German). Can't quite say it's the same thing as in German (even though it's the same word), since as I said, it's not the common word for 'ghost'. You've got to be careful with False friends like these. E.g. 'geschäft' is a valid 'Swedish' word, but only in the context of saying 'make a big deal out of something'. Or how German 'ruhig' (calm) becomes Danish 'rolig' (calm) and then Swedish 'rolig' - which means 'funny'! --130.237.179.182 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While I can confirm that "spøkelse" is the usual word in Norwegian, Gespenst is used (rarely) and understood in Norwegian and Danish. See this google search (most of the hits are Danish). The word is rather antiquated in Norwegian. The words "gjenferd" and "gjenganger" are also used in Norwegian about as frequently as "spøkelse". Slightly different connotations; "spøkelse" focuses on the apparition, while "gjenganger" and "gjenferd" focuses on the person who has returned. The literal translation of "gjenferd" is "other journey" or "journey back"; "gjenganger" is "person who walks again". The Norwegian Wikipedia lists the synonyms "gjenganger", "gjenferd", "dauding", "skrømt" and "gespenster". The play Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen is "Gengangere" (Danish spelling) in the original. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say 'gjenganger' (Sw: 'gengångare') is almost what you'd call a 'zombie' now. Although perhaps a little less physical, and without the connotation of B-horror movies. I'm realizing here that it's a bit hard to translate these things given that every horror fiction author tends to invent their own definitions and distinctions.. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The zombie connotation of "gjenganger" may be a Swedish thing, it's not used that way in Norwegian. A "gjenganger" is soneone's ghost, and is also used metaforically - something evil which repeats itself in the next generation - like in Ibsen's play. I'd say the only synonym with any zombie connotations in Norwegian would be "dauding". --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those terms where the translation you choose depends a lot on context, because both English and German have synonyms for ghost, specter, phantom, spirit, spook, wraith - Geist, Gespenst, Irrlicht, Phantom. You can either say "Gespenstergeschichte", "Geistergeschichte" or "Spukgeschichte" for ghost story. But the hour between midnight and 1 a.m. is only "Geisterstunde" not "Gespensterstunde" or "Spukstunde". While both Geist and Gespenst can be used to describe a (sort of) person a "Spuk" is used to describe the event rather than the person. You can call a sprite a "Geist" but not a "Gespenst". A castle can be haunted by a "Schlossgespenst" or a "Schlossgeist" both of whom can be friendly or hostile. But the phrase "das Gespenst der Geschichte" (the specter of history) is negative whereas "der Geist der Geschichte" (the spirit of history) is positive. To boot Geist also means "mind" in German. "Spök" is used in Low German and Swedish. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence Improvement

The railway network in Italy totals 16,627 kilometres (10,331 mi), ranking the country 17th in the world,[39] and is operated by Ferrovie dello Stato.

I don't like how it sounds, but I cannot figure out how to improve it. What do you guys think?--Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Italian railway network, operated by Ferrovie dello Stato, is the 17th longest in the world at 16,627 km" DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For an even smoother sentence, you could use FS, the short way to say Ferrovie dello Stato. Strawless ^(talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make the sentence smoother, it just uses an abbreviation most English speakers will be unfamiliar with. —Angr 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll withdraw smoother, Angr, but most English speakers would be just as puzzled by Ferrovie dello Stato, even without the challenge of pronouncing it. Strawless ^(talk) 23:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it reads pretty well as it stands. There are three minor issues. First, it's not clear whether the sentence means that 16,627 km of routes or of tracks. (That is, do double-track lines count once or twice?) Both methods are fairly commonly used. But this may be clarified elsewhere in the article.

Second, in the first part of the sentence "railway network" refers only to the tracks (or routes) themselves, since that is what is being measured, but in the second part it is better interpreted as including the whole system (trains, stations, etc.), since that is what the FS operates. But this is a common way of speaking; note that Duncan's version does the same thing.

Third, the second main verb ("is operated") is a fairly long way from the subject. Duncan's version resolves that by rearranging the parts, but there are subtle changes of emphasis and it may not read as well in context. --Anonymous, 23:04 UTC, January 20/09.

I think that DuncanHill has developed the best answer to this.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. And I also think that the average English-speaker will have no trouble with Ferrovie dello Stato given the clue "Italian railway network". Ferro like "ferrous", vie like "via", dello like all the Romance "of the"s, and Stato is obvious. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm enough of a snob to think that (a) the average anglo ought to be able to work out what it means but (b) in fact the average anglo won't make head or tail of it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the average English speaker will understand the words. Or, for the least, they will understand that it is a language other than English. For some reason, I cannot edit the article from which I took the sentence. I am not sure why.--Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article is it? DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, found it, the article is Italy and it is indefinitely semi-protected, so only autoconfirmed editors can edit it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

learning German

What is the easiest way to learn to speak (not read/write) German? Moving to Germany is not an option, and I'm not going to take formal classes unless it's 100% necessary. flaminglawyer^c 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, teaching to read/write is preferred, but not needed for my purposes. flaminglawyer^c 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See (and hear) Language Guide: German Pictorial Vocabulary Guide | Deutsch: Vokabelführer.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(after EC) For what purpose would you like to speak German? Would you like to communicate with German business associates, listen to German language lectures at a university? Talk to German relatives? How much time would you like to invest and what level of proficiency would you expect to achieve after that period? Do you live near a town with a university where you might find a language swap program? Do you have to do this on a limited budget or could you afford spending some money on material/lessons? There are many methods available, but one size does not fit all, individual learning preferences and abilities vary widely. German is not an easy language to learn. Sentence structures can be mind boggling. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(also after EC) It depends a lot on the individual, but at least for someone who speaks English, German is a fairly easy foreign language to begin, perhaps even the easiest. You could start by asking your local library if it has any materials it can lend you, such as a German course on cassettes, CDs, or DVDs. Things like that are out there. You could also begin by buying one of the German teaching books aimed at schools, I have seen some good ones, or by asking about local evening classes. Some people find that being taught formally works best for them, not least from the point of view of sticking with it. German pronunciation (I mean of Hochdeutsch) is fairly straightforward, but at some stage you really need a live teacher who will set you on the right path, or at the very least some kind of audio material. Strawless ^(talk) 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get some CD's from my library and see if they work. I won't mark this Q as resolved in case anyone has any better ways to mention. flaminglawyer^c 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You might check out these two web sites: http://german.about.com, http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=aboutgerman Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend this tutorial for the basics of grammar. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

German is certainly a straightforward language to learn for someone who speaks English. Since Fraktur fell into disuse, you don't have to learn a new alphabet - just the scharfes-S and the Umlaut letters. Rules of pronunciation are simple and consistent. Once these are mastered, it's a piece of cake to pronounce. It has none of the pronunciation anomalies of English. The sentence structure is a bit unusual, but a knowledge of Latin may be a good preparation. Once a basic level of proficiency is reached, and you need some practice, you could do worse than watch some German TV channels on the internet, with their news programmes, advertisements and documentaries. Their vocabulary is relatively simple and non-colloquial, and diction is of a higher standard than in everyday conversation, usually without any extreme regional accents. There's a site called Beeline TV from where you can select a number of German stations if you have broadband. NDR Fernsehen from the north of Germany is one of the better ones. Pavel (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of TV, "Sesamstrasse" the German version of Sesame Street isn't the worst place to start if you need basic vocabulary and everyday conversations. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)