Language desk
< September 12	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 14 >

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.

September 13

Reading of a Japanese Character

I can't seem to find how to read the character with 冨 at left, and 力 at right. Does anyone know? Aslo the one for the 'byou' (as in 病) plus 矢? Thanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character? I only think of two words. You mean 富力/ふりょく/furyoku and 疾病/しっぺい/shippei? Oda Mari (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mari. I wanted to know because I was on Linux at the time, and the input method (ibus) does not have a way of actually drawing the character, unlike in Windows. Do you know of a way to do that in Linux. I want to be able to draw the character I see, and then get a copypastable version (plus readings if possible) of the kanji? As for the characters, I asked a Chinese friend who was online to help, by sending her a screenshot. Got 'em in the end! Thanks for your efforts. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

got?

Non-native speaker here. I am not sure if the use of got is necessary or incorrect or unnecessary in the following examples:

I have got news for you. (as opposed to 'I have news for you'.)
I have got three children. (as opposed to 'I have three children children'.)

Please let me know what category do the above sentences fall under. Thanks!

Such a gentleman 17:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only standard use of "got" is as either the past or past participle of the word "to get". Colloquially, it is sometimes used in place of the helper verb "to have", as in the song title "We Gotta Get out of This Place" where "gotta" is a slur of "got to". That usage is not standard. However, in your examples, "got" would only be used if you meant the past of "to get", as in "I have got three children" yesterday, today I get three children, tomorrow I will get three children. Like that. If you just mean "Three children were born to me" then you would leave out the got. Same with the first "I have got news for you", in standard english, would mean you went out and obtained an object for the person. If you're just telling them something, "I have news for you" is fine. Both sentences are common enough in non-standard or colloquial English, but neither is a "standard" use of got in formal English. --Jayron32 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree partly with Jayron. From a British English perspective, teachers have complained about "have got" for many years, but your two sentences are so normal in colloquial British English that the forms without "got", though perfectly grammatical, sound a little stilted in ordinary conversation. There is a long running British TV quiz show called Have I Got News for You: without "got", it would be equally grammatical, but just sound wrong. (Ignore the inverted verb "Have I" rather than "I have" - that's because it's an exclamation). When I was young, in the 1960's, we didn't say "don't have" or "do you have" in UK English: we said "haven't got" and "have you got".

"I gotta" (or "I've got to") is quite different: the "got" is part of the lexical verb, and may not be omitted.--ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what usage? Gotta is always colloquial, not formal. In formal writing, I can't think of a time when gotta would be allowed, or where "I have got..." would be used where "I have" wouldn't be better, excepting where "got" is explicitly the past tense of "to get" rather than just a superfluous add on. Of course, colloquial English has its own rules and idioms, and gotta is perfectly acceptable in many settings and registers. Just not formal ones. --Jayron32 19:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Colin. We had an English teacher (London in the 1970s) who explained at length that "got" should never be used. In his next lesson, we gleefully counted the number of times that he used "got" and lost count at forty something. Nobody had the courage to present our evidence; he was rather irascible and we still had the cane; discretion proving to be the better part of valour. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my native experience with American English, I think everything that ColinFine says applies to American English too. I've got news for you is overwhelmingly common, while I have news for you sounds a little stiff. (See also Have I Got a Story for You (Batman: Gotham Knight), You've Got Mail, and Have I Got a Deal for You. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but as I said, formal vs. colloquial register needs to be considered. Formal language is almost always stiff sounding when contrasted with colloquial speech. "I've got news for you" is natural and understandable and comfortable for nearly all English speakers, but it is not formal standard English, in the same way that neither the word "ain't" or the "singular they" are. Such usages are perfectly acceptable in casual conversation, but may be frowned upon where formal language is required. Knowing the difference is vital to being a literate and fluent speaker of a language (that is, it is important to know when to use the colloquial register as well as the formal). There's nothing wrong with the colloquial register, in the proper setting, and formal register is inappropriate in some settings. But when answering questions like this, it is still important to note distinctions in usage where they exist. --Jayron32 19:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ref-desk thread. Deor (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the use of got is that to have is slowly being grammaticalizeed and turned into a pure helping verb in the way haber in Spanish is no longer used to express simple regular possession as it still is in French, and one must use tener instead. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says have and get come from two different PIE words both meaning "to seize", so "have got" seems like reduplication. "I grab grab news for you". One of them has to go. Note that "I got news for you" and "I got three children" are also valid English, although extra-informal. Card Zero (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

evangelism and proselytism

Is evangelism a category under proselytism, or are they synonyms? A simple Google search brings up the result that evangelism is conversion to Christianity while proselytism is conversion to Judaism. That said, a term to describe religious conversion to other faiths would presumably be religious conversion, correct? 164.107.146.188 (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelism is the more specific term used in Christianity; proselytism can be used for any religion, but meaning the same thing. Christian proselytism is called evangelism; but other religions also proselytize. They just don't evangelize. See evangelism and proselytism, the second expressly notes that the term is the more broad of the two. --Jayron32 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the term evangelistic is sometimes used in a secular context, where it means something that spreads zealously. I am just wondering, but using the word evangelistic in a secular context, maybe a person may say, " [type of non-Christian] are opening evangelistic programs to convert people to the [name of non-Christian] faith." 164.107.146.188 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any term can be used metaphorically or analogistically in ways differing from its formal definition. In terms of how the terms are formally defined however, Evangalism is basically Christian Proselytism. --Jayron32 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't buffalo me so much

While we're on the topic of the buffalo sentence (see above), I have this nagging doubt. It's really "The buffalo that buffalo buffalo" (leaving out the adjective Buffalo). It seems to me you can leave out the word "that" or the word "the", but not both. "The" is a necessary way of saying it's a specific subset of buffalo, as I read it. Try "The dogs that cats like hate mice". Surely you can't go "dogs cats like hate mice"? The word "the" is the only way of saying it's a specific subset of dogs, so you have the definite article for a definite group. So I would say it has to be "The dogs cats like hate mice". Am I wrong? IBE (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your sentence "The dogs cats like hate mice" seems to be grammatically correct. However, I find it personally confusing, because I interpret it as meaning that there is some sort of species called "dogs cats" and it hates mice. I actually like the sentence like this: "The dogs, that cats like, hate mice." That way, I can clearly see the verb, predicate, and clause within the sentence to avoid confusion. 164.107.146.188 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a sentence is confusing, it doesn't make it grammatically incorrect (just poor style, perhaps). There's nothing grammatically wrong with "dogs cats like hate mice", with or without the "the" and the "that". Personally, I prefer it with both, for clarity, but that's just my preferred style. Headlinese is an increasingly common style. Dbfirs 18:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said "grammatically correct" and not "grammatically incorrect". 164.107.146.188 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your conclusion, IBE. The whole thing is (intentionally) difficult to parse, and inserting either of those words makes it easier, but doesn't affect its grammaticality or meaning. "Children Santa Claus visits ... " may be the start of a garden-path sentence, but it's a perfectly well-formed NP. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but I'll see what others say. So let's make it a full sentence, "Children Santa Claus visits get presents". Somehow this seems to work, but the example I gave, with no identifiers, still sounds dreadfully wrong. It is also difficult to parse, but that isn't my point. I can parse it easily because I wrote it; it just seems to be lacking something. I'm wondering if there is a difference between your (very clever) sentence and mine, although I can't think what. IBE (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with "dogs cats like hate mice", would most readily interpret it as "the dogs that cats like tend to dislike mice". However, another interpretation could be, with missing subject, "dogs cats, like, hates mice". Similar to "she dogs cats, know what I mean, and she hates mice". Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article "the" does make a difference in my mind. "The" makes it definite, whereas the lack of the article makes it more general. "The dogs that cats like hate mice" is about specific dogs, whereas "Dogs cats like hate mice" is more of a generalization. What I mean to say is, the first gives a sense that all dogs that all cats like hate mice and the second say it more as a truism, not referring to specific dogs or cats. Mingmingla (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dulce et decorum...

I want to change that famous Latin phrase Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori from "It is good and fitting to die for one's country" to "It is good and fitting to die for one's [own] dreams." How would I write this?

Regards, --98.228.189.205 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sequere tua somnia, is follow your dreams although just substituting "tua somnia" for "patria" may not be the best grammar. It might be pretty close but let's just say I wouldn't rush to get it tattooed on me before someone else weighs in. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to change "die" to "live," sorry I forgot to mention such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.189.205 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To live for ones dreams? "Dulce et decorum est pro somniis vivere", although "somnium" is literally the dreams you have while asleep. So, maybe "pro spebus"? ("For [one's] hopes") Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'goals' would be a better word than 'hopes,' it implies more direct control over the situation...what word would that be?--98.228.189.205 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the word 'imaginatio,' would that be good?--98.228.189.205 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'finis' has many meanings, one of which is 'limit, boundary, end, goal', so I think that may be your best choice. With that word, the phrase would be "Dulce et decorum est pro fīnibus vivere" (Macron optional).--Mike44456 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]