Language desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 10

Preposition for address

Do you send a letter to an address or only on an address? Is somebody available at an address or only on an address? 59.91.254.91 (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You send a letter to John Smith at 125 Acacia Avenue, for example. On would not be used in this context. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP and my question is not addressed in the reply above. The question was about the preposition preceding the word "address", not a(ny) name.10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.33 (talk)

You send a letter to an address. A person is available at an address. —An gr 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was adequately answered by Richardrj, FYI. --KageTora (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that prepositions are the hardest words to translate accurately between languages. I would guess that the OP is not a native English speaker. There is rarely a one-to-one correspondance between a preposition in English like "on" and another single preposition in another language. The usage for each preposition must be learned from within the language itself, not by analogy to ones own native language. For example (because its the only other language I know well enough), take a French preposition like "à". It's usually translated as "to", as in "Je vais à la plage"; I go to the beach. But what about "Je suis à la plage"; I am at the beach or "Il est un ami à moi"; He is a friend of mine or "fait à la main", done by hand, or... you get the idea. The use of the preposition à has fairly consistant rules of use in French, but it doesn't match the rules of use for any one preposition in English.

Even in varieties of English, there are differences. Think of the word "in". "Our house, in the middle of our street" makes sense to the Brits, for them this just means the house is between the two ends of the street. For Americans, it sounds like the house is sitting in the median between travel lanes or something. It is not surprising that there would be confusion between phrases like "to" an address or "at" an address or "on" an address. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And more to the point, in North America you phone someone at 345-6789; in Britain you phone them on 345-6789. But this variation does not exist with addresses. --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, March 10, 2009.

We do sometimes talk about sending letters to an address, rather than to a person at an address. But it's still "to", never "on". (Jayron, I see you refer to both á and à above. Just to clarify, and not to nitpick, the French preposition is spelled with a grave accent - à, and only that way. Á / á does exist, but not in French. French alphabet#Notes tells me the only accents ever used with the letter "a" in French are the grave "à" and the circumflex "â".) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I was working on a small laptop monitor and both accents looked the same in the little character menu at the bottom of the screen. I meant to type grave-a, even if I accidentally hit the acute-a. I fixed them all now, I think...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider--addresses CAN use "on", but only if it's non-specific. Eg: I live ON 1st St. In a case like this, "at" would be improper. If the address is specific (Eg: I live AT 100 1st St), then ON does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewfangrb (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I alluded to above, this use of "on" is American usage, I believe the British use "in" in these cases, so where Americans say "I live on First Street", the Brits say "I live in First Street". When speaking of a specific house, both I believe use "at", as in "I live at 2123 First Street".--Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, addresses can use ON, especially Canadian ones: 224 St George St, Toronto ON M5R 2N9. — Emil J. 13:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going do that sort of wordplay, American ones can use IN: 4020 N. Sherman Dr., Indianapolis IN 46226. So there! :-) --Anonymous, 01:53 UTC, March 12, 2009.

Another "in" vs "on" example with regional difference is whether one "stands in line" or "stands on line". US map on this here. Pfly (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other usages, like inline citations, which are in line with our policy in this online encyclopedia, which nobody has to stand in line to get access to. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Teacher's job

His Royal Highness,

Sir,

I am a very small person but I definitely have at least one agenda in my mind. I want to develop Thai children and make them capable to make a career anywhere in the world.

Please let me explain. I came to Thailand to do a TEFL International diploma course and then to teach English as foreign language in schools in and around Bangkok. When I started applying to schools for a teacher's job, I came to know that schools want only native English speakers as English teachers. I felt bad because I have studied in India in English and I am sure I also have almost equal knowledge of the language.

I am again going to be back in Bangkok from 12th March onwards only to look for a n assignment as a teacher, and hopefully will be employed. But I feel the Thai government should introduce another examination for people like me to know our knowledge of English language and those who clear the exam should be employed if not in international schools, may be in Government schools to start with. This will help the government to employ teachers whose English is as good as native English speakers (who seek jobs only in International schools because of the good compensation) to teach English in Government schools as well. Please consider my suggestion and oblige.

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

Anil Sawant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asawant03 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we can't really help you here. This is a reference desk for general knowledge questions and answers. You should be addressing your problem to the Thai authorities. Good luck. By the way, I removed your telephone number. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I run into Bhumibol, I'll forward your concerns. --Pykk (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have the wrong address for the letter. I doubt His Royal Highness reads the Wikipedia Helpdesk very often. You'd be better off sending it to him directly, unless you sent it here because you had a question to ask.--KageTora (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they should hire the best teachers of English they can find. If they can get all native English speakers, that would be best. However, if not, then hiring some who, as you put it, "have almost equal knowledge of the language", would be necessary. Perhaps you would do better to teach some other topic, at a school where English is also taught. For example, I'm sure they would be glad to have a math teacher who also speaks English, especially if they expect the students to speak English in all classes. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that many schools prefer native speakers teacher, however, is it really an advantage for the pupils? Supposing that the teachers leads them and points out to important aspects of the language and their own linguistic ability, would a non-native teacher be really a disadvantage? --Mr.K. (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that many people (students, their parents, businesses) will pay good money to see a native speaker talk English, and would prefer to be taught by them, often in preference to a more experienced, better qualified local teacher. Whether a foreigner (an Indian in Thailand) would have some of the exotic allure, or whether you would fall prey to the racism endemic in most teaching of English as a foreign language (in e.g. Hong Kong it was easily identifiable), we cannot say. See the external organisations listed in ELT and TESOL. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personality development

Moved to the Humanities Ref Desk

Radix malorum est cupiditas

A question regarding the word order of this Biblical quotation: could it also be rendered as "Cupiditas radix malorum est"? Wouldn't that be the more "normal" word order (with the verb coming last)? I don't know much about Latin, but that struck me as being contrary to other Latin phrases I've encountered. Thanks ... Dgcopter (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word order in Latin is kind of free, but there are default word orders (as you mentioned). In constructions where an element is moved from its default position to the end of the sentence, there's often an emphasis placed on that element. By the way, there's a word missing... AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. What did you mean by "there's a word missing"? There's a word missing from the quotation? Dgcopter (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I guess the Latin is just quite a bit more ambiguous than the original Greek. For the Latin phrase to express the same meaning as the original Greek, with a similar level of ambiguity, the translators from Greek into Latin probably should have added an additional word... AnonMoos (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be speculated that Hieronymus thought that either meaning of the term "cupiditas" was a good candidate for "radix malorum".--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Radix malorum est cupiditas (with macrons, Rādīx malōrum est cupiditās) explains that cupiditas (with a macron, cupiditās) in this context means love of money. If one were to amend the Vulgate to make the passage more precise, one could change cupiditas to cupiditas pecuniae (with macrons, cupiditās pecūniae), where pecuniae (pecūniae) means of money. See also http://multilingualbible.com/1_timothy/6-10.htm (third version in first column).

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the basic general meaning of cupiditas is something along the lines of "eager desire, passionate longing", and it can also mean "ambition"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is "usual" for the Latin verb to come at the end, but with esse it is also fine classical style to put it in the same position as in English (for example "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres"). However, the Vulgate is certainly not classical; the Latin is usually pretty good, but with simplified grammar and syntax. Jerome sometimes sacrificed style to make his translation as literal as possible to the Hebrew and Greek. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comma here and give me an answer

Which is right?

The term is associated with but not restricted to India.
The term is associated with, but not restricted to India.
The term is associated with, but not restricted to, India.

Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would take but not restricted to as an additional phrase to the main clause (The term is associated with India) so use a pair of commas, as a form of parentheses as in comma. But that's not a technical answer; I doubt you will get a yes/no anyway. I wouldn't use the middle option, though, because neither clause (before or after the comma) makes any sense on its own. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of commas is often more a matter of style than of absolute rules. I do not think that a comma is absolutely required in that sentence, so the first example would be acceptable. I agree with Jarry1250 that the paired commas work to set off "but not restricted to" as a parenthetical phrase. So, I think the third example is also acceptable. I tend to agree with Jarry1250 that the second example looks wrong, though I'm not certain that there is a clear rule there, unless it is that commas should not separate prepositions from their objects except in a phrase set off by paired commas. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove "but not restricted to" and what's left - "The term is associated with India" - which makes perfect sense and is still accurate. Therefore, "but not restricted to" is a parenthetical clause and must be surrounded by commas if commas are used at all. It's no different from writing "The term is associated with (but not restricted to) India". You wouldn't have the left bracket but not the right, or vice-versa. But you can write it without any commas at all. It's an all-or-nothing choice: 2 commas or none at all, but not just 1. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Untouchable has been...touched up. (But, what, if, you're, William, Shatner?) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then remind yourself that spoken language and written language are different things. —Tamfang (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

And that "written language" isn't language any more than a painting of a pipe is a pipe. —An gr 07:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash. Language is a form of symbolic communication in which elements are combined to represent something other than themselves. ... A common progression for natural languages is that they are considered to be first spoken, then written, and then an understanding and explanation of their grammar is attempted. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know, sometimes a painting has to be the arrow when you're looking for directions, and you can't afford to say it's just paint. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]