Language desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

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.

February 8

japan's culture

can anybody translate the use of son at the end of somebody's name? Davidson, Michaelson, etc? Is it just a sign of respect? Does it translate ? -- dcy413 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcy413 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually spelt in English as san, for which we have some information at Japanese honorifics. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Japanese, but do they not have a "son of" structure in their naming system? Isn't "rō (郎)" the Japanese equivalent? (I understood the question differently from Jack, and my answer is probably not useful because it applies to male given names.) Dbfirs 07:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not have that system. The child always takes the family name of the father. "rō (郎)" is occasionally used in first names, but has nothing to do with the parents' names. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... so there is really no equivalent and no translation? Dbfirs 12:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Japan does not use the same system as Iceland. There is no translation, because the system is not used. Also, names should not be translated, anyway. On Hiroyuki Chabata-san's passport, it will not say Mr. Wide-Happiness Tea-Field. That's ridiculous. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why you'd mentioned Iceland until I remembered Magnus Magnusson. Is the question based on a misunderstanding? Dbfirs 14:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole question is riddled with confusion: The heading is "japan's culture", yet the question is about translating the use of son (as in Davidson or Michaelson) at the end of somebody's name, which has nothing to do with Japanese. I must admit I hadn't paid close enough attention to the question to notice this inherent mismatch of header and text, so my initial response was based on an assumption they were talking of translating the Japanese -san into other languages and that the OP assumed the Japanese -san is equivalent to the -son in English and Scandinavian languages. Other respondents interpreted it in exactly the reverse way: translating the English -son into the Japanese equivalent, but also asking if that's possible or meaningful. I give the OP 10 marks for a short header, but 0 marks for the clarity of the question, and -10 marks for confusing everybody. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The complex and nuanced system of Japanese honorifics has no English equivalent, and indeed no equivalent in most languages. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. In English we refer to someone with Mr or Mrs or Miss or Ms. They are basically the same as 'san' in Japanese. 'Sama' is more polite and respectful. 'Kun' is used for little boys (like older English 'master'), or affectionately for older boys younger than oneself (presumably someone you are tutoring), and 'chan' is used for girls (but also for boys). In most cases, in Japan, people refer to each other by their job title in the work place, and don't even say the name. This happens in many countries/languages. English is a little bit different, because if I had a boss called 'John Smith', I would call him 'John'. However, this also happens in Japan. I worked in Japan for ten years, and everyone used their first names, occasionally (but not always) appended with their job title. It's not as different as you think. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by the caption in File:Tokugawa Ieyasu handprint.jpg?

--Inspector (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just says how old he was (38), how tall he was (155cm), and what his weight was (60kg) at the time of the print. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the last sentence. I just knew it says "...is at ...", but I am not sure which those two noun refer to.--Inspector (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handprint is available at the shop. Oda Mari (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say or imply that "Handprint is available..." it is the original? I just see claims like this in other discussion in this wikipedia.--Inspector (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that. I very much doubt that the original handprint would be available at the shop, as they would run out of stock after only selling one. They will all be copies of it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And is this actually a shop? Here is the translation appears in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is this picture a source valid enough on its own to say that Tokugawa Ieyasu had a single transverse palmar crease?:"The sentence to the far left says that the original imprint can be seen in a hall/room where honors are conferred, etc."--Inspector (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a gift shop or souvenir shop in whichever museum this is in. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

手形 is handprint, 色紙 is a square piece of high-quality paperboard (for writing poems or painting pictures), 授与所 is a term used by shrines and it's a synonym for gift shop. See page 2. It says "Charms, talismans...inked stamps of the shirine can be purchased at the amulet reception counter (神札授与所). Of course, what they sell are copies like the one in the image. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seemed this does not relate to the validity of handprint anyway.--Inspector (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

, before and in Am Eng

It was my understanding that , did not come before and except in a few cases. Is it normal and correct in American english that , is before an and? Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Serial comma (Oxford comma, Harvard comma). I think it's fair to say that this is becoming rarer. Opinions about "correctness" differ. Dbfirs 12:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):It's a matter of style. In English, I always put the ',' before the last item in a series of a list because it makes it much clearer to me. Consider the following: "I like sandwiches, peanut butter and jelly." vs. "I like sandwiches, peanut butter, and jelly." Then there is this popular (and potentially slightly not-safe-for-work) internet meme. As far as I am aware, there is no one standard (you could probably find people advocating for both). I would recommend the one that you find most clear. Falconus^{p t c} 12:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder why the strippers were invited before the politicians, so that one can't rearrange the phrase into one of the four sequences that don't invite the ambiguity. —Tamfang (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard counter-example is "Dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand[,] and God", where leaving out the second comma changes the meaning quite a bit... AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For use in Wikipedia, see MOS:SERIAL.—Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught in America always to use the comma for serial lists as a child, then told in college there was a shortage of commas and we had to economize. And expansion of AnonMoos' observation is that one usually shouldn't omit the comma when the items are phrases. -- 17:45, 8 February 2013‎ Medeis

U.S. book publishers tend to use a serial comma before and, but the serial comma before and is usually omitted in U.S. journalism. Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My English teacher said that the comma in lists was originally an abbreviation for "and". A and B and C and D = A, B, C and D. If you say "A, B, C, and D", you are actually saying "A and B and C and and D". Obviously, though, you want to make any given sentence as clear as possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true though: it's just a way to make children remember a rule you told them. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a university English teacher giving a seminar at work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You learnt your English only after you started work? Hmm, that explains a lot. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

No, the instructor was brought in to help interested colleagues learn more about writing and speaking. I took accelerated English through high school, and then passed a proficiency exam and didn't have to take it in college. But the occasional refreshers, such as workplace seminars, are good to have. This is the same instructor who explained to us why we should avoid or at least minimize passive voice in business communications. And he was right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a convenient use of logic, because it's a damn shame the same peerless logic doesn't apply to the odd practice of including inside quotes punctuation that is provided by the author of the sentence in which the quote appears but was never in the original quote itself. Such as the semi-colon here: Lincoln then said "Yadda yadda yadda;" his interlocutors were silenced. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the standard US style is to put a semicolon not belonging to a quote outside the quotation marks but a comma or period inside the quotation marks. Even though (or maybe because) I am a US editor, I agree with Jack that this set of style rules is terribly befuddling. Marco polo (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco polo is right that the confusing rule only applies to commas and full stops. It's easy to remember why if you know where it comes from, though most people don't. Here is the secret:

When you print something with a Gutenberg-type press with letters made of lead, then little bits are prone to break off if they stand on their own. This is not a big problem for the dot on an i because of the nearby more stable stroke. It's also not a problem for a semicolon because the comma and the dot above it support each other sufficiently. But it is be a problem for a comma or a full stop if they are left alone. Normally this does not happen as there is always a letter to the left. Except when there isn't, as in the case of a comma or full stop after a quotation mark. The quotation marks are too high to support these two weak, low symbols. The problem can be solved by switching the quotation mark and the comma or full stop. If there even is a problem. If you are using an electronic printing system, the rule makes no sense whatsoever, but is still applied because people got used to it.

So history tells you both how to remember the details of the rule and why it makes no sense whatsoever nowadays, except for preventing accusations of stupidity from pedants. Hans Adler 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did this switch to a discussion of quote marks? What's relevant would seem to be that a comma literally indicates a pause, and one pauses before the "and". One says a...b...and...c, not a...b-and...c. Of course using this rule assumes you can speak decently. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around here long enough to know about the magical powers most of us possess. We can instantly transform any discussion into any other discussion. If you like, I could show you a few home movies where you've been remarkably successful yourself. "What a talent that girl has", they all said. "It's the White House for her. Or some sort of house, anyway." -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

German: rüstung vs panzer

I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between the German words "rüstung" and "panzer" (when talking about armour for people). Both seem to mean what one would say "armour" in English. Leather armour is de:Lederrüstung, but plate armour is de:Plattenpanzer. Are the two effectively synonyms, with one chosen over the other for a specific use only by historical happenstance, or is there a distinction between the two which I'm not understanding? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer is actually a rather rare word for a full set of body armor, I'm a bit surprised the de: article is titled "Plattenpanzer" - I'd have expected it to be titled "Plattenrüstung" (the article text itself mostly uses "Plattenrüstung", and the disambiguation page de:Panzer_(Begriffsklärung) doesn't even mention its "body armor" meaning). In any case: the terms are more or less synonymous, but there are some slightly different connotations. Rüstung is the catch-all term for any kind of body armor, usually understood to mean a full set of armor, including at least some sort of body armor and a helmet. A Panzer is usually just a single piece of armor - initially it meant a protection for the lower body (from French pancier), but over time its meaning shifted slightly to mean (most often) breastplate (Brustpanzer). What's more, a Rüstung can be made of pretty much any material imaginable, whereas Panzer generally means heavy armor - it's almost exclusively used for heavy steel plate. -- Ferkelparade π 19:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plattenpanzer is not a rare word at all. I am not sure if I have ever encountered the synonym Plattenrüstung. Hans Adler 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The noun Rüstung is derived from the verb rüsten (prepare, equip with weapons, produce weapons). In a wider sense it can refer to everything you equip yourself with when you go to war. In a narrower sense, this word has come to be used for any kind of protective clothes or armour.

The noun Panzer is derived from the Old French noun pancier[e], which can be any kind of full-body armour. In mediaeval contexts, the German word mostly typically refers to a full-body armour consisting of pieces of solid metal, though apparently it can also be used for a metal breastplate or even any kind of Rüstung.

Rüstung is the more general word. Without further specification it's not clear at all which kind of armour is meant. When you use the word Panzer without further explanation, there is an assumption that the armour is made of metal and gives significant protection, probably a plate armour, but at least a chainmail. Hans Adler 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rüstung gives an impression something like the word "gear" can give. It is a verbal noun also so you can maybe compare to modern English constructions like "kitted up". The emphasis is on the getting some equipment on. Panzer is as mentioned by others quite specifically about the kind of material being used (metal).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. That's a real, useful, and (mostly) non-arbitrary distinction between the two. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]