Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 24

Language desk
< May 23	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 25 >

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.

May 24

internet or Internet ?

Is it considered correct to capitalize 'internet' in a normal sentence, or is lowercase preferred?--69.118.235.97 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether you are talking about the Internet and an internet. --LarryMac | Talk 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on more than just that. See Internet capitalization conventions. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, we really do have an article on everything! Thanks for that link. --LarryMac | Talk 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, we have an article on Holy cow too.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, Lambiam, old sport, you might want to get your glasses checked -- it looks like we've got three or four of them! —Steve Summit (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

However

I am a native French speaker and consider myself fluent in English—I have studied economics in Chicago for the past two years—but occasionally encounter constructions with which a native speaker would not have trouble that nevertheless perplex me; if this, then, is an insipid question, you should feel free to ignore it. In any case, in the main page summary of tornado, today's featured article, there appears Tornadoes have been observed on every continent except Antarctica; however, most of the world's tornadoes occur in the United States. To my ear, that sounds off. I'd probably write ...Antarctica; most of the world's tornadoes, however [or though], occur in the United States or ...Antarctica, although most of the world's tornadoes occur in the United States (or perhaps Although tornadoes have been observed on every continent except Antarctica, most occur...). Is the usage in the main page summary prescriptively wrong or syntactically substandard or is it quite fine? Thanks, 69.212.20.103 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The usage in the article is fine as is. There is nothing wrong with it. It is really perfect English. Your suggested alternatives are fine, too. All of them are correct. Marco polo 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are all preferable. The original phrasing is not grammatically wrong, but it's considered stylistically weaker, at least by Strunk & White: [1]. They suggest that "however" be kept out of the first position. Your revisions also make the sentence into a single, connected unit, instead of two main clauses joined by a semicolon. That's usually an improvement. There is a trend towards using "however" as a substitute for "but," as in "...Antartica, however most of the world's tornadoes..." That usage may or may not have influenced the article you quoted, but it's definitely not standard so far. --Reuben 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That usage (xxx, however yyy) is not only "not standard" but just plain wrong. Classic example of a comma splice, bridged by "however". I see it everywhere, here (Wikipedia) and elsewhere. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the comma should be replaced with a semi-colon? I don't know that many people would insist on that. JackofOz 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and, as they say, more's the pity, as it's plain wrong. (But, of course, this battle, as well as all others, is hopelessly lost in the age of the Internets, where anything goes ...) Also, do you really call it a "semi-colon"? Usually rendered w/o the hyphen. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The However link in the title above says this: "However" is not a conjunction, but a conjunctive adverb; therefore, when joining clauses with "however", a semicolon must be used and not a comma.. It gives the example: "I like chips; however, I detest potatoes.". Do you disagree with that, and if so, why? (Yes, semi-colon is the standard spelling where I come from.) (PS. I think you need a comma between "and" and "as".)  :) JackofOz 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree with that, as otherwise it's a comma splice (two complete clauses improperly joined with a comma); I thought that's what I was trying to get across. (And yes, that comma helps.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the stylistic issue, my opinion is that Strunk and White (and Reuben) got it wrong. There is nothing wrong with moving "however" inside the sentence, but it is stronger in the leading position, and lots of people are happy writing it there. --Anonymous, May 24, 2007, 23:44 (UTC).

One possible advantage of this use of however is that it makes aimless writing stand out like a sore thumb. When two sentences in a paragraph begin with However, it's a strong sign that the passage needs to be torn down and built from scratch. If they were written with but, a lighter word, I think I'd be less likely to notice. —Tamfang 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

IS or ARE ?

A copy of our report and your report is enclosed.

A copy of our report and your report are enclosed.

The first is correct if you are referring to a single copy containing both reports. If in fact there are two copies, one of each report, then it should be worded as follows:

Copies of our report and your report are enclosed.

Marco polo 20:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What if its a copy of our report but the actual your report. Then #2 is the shit!!--71.185.132.25 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, all of the examples and suggestions given here are ambiguous. Like the first: does that mean "a copy of our report and a copy of your report", or "a copy of our report and your original report"? So it would be better to be explicit. Don't use "shorthand" to save a few words: say what you mean, man! +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A very similar question was asked a week ago: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 16#Useage of IS/ARE. Check out the answers given there.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of reading it as 71. did. The wording does not suggest that meaning. If 71.'s reading is the intended meaning, the following would be much clearer:

Your report and a copy of our report are enclosed.

Marco polo 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese character identification.

I sell jewelry of all sorts on eBay, and recently came across a gold pendant with a different Chinese character on either side, and was wondering if there are any Wikipedians out there who would be kind enough to identify/translate them for me.

First character, second character.

Thanks in advance, and just a warning, the host puts thumbnails of other random images they host on all their pages, some of which may not be safe for work. Cyraan 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1st: 壽; 2nd: 福. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

People from Colombia?

I've seen a number of wikipedia articles that refer to people from Colombia as Columbians, isn't the correct term Colombians?--69.118.235.97 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed; they are Colombians. English-speaking people commonly pronounce Colombia as Columbia, but that's incorrect too. I just noticed our article says that the English version of the name of the country is Columbia, but I've removed that until and unless someone can prove it. JackofOz 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"just kidding" figure of speech

Is there a generic name for the rhetorical device where one makes an assertion, pauses, then withdraws the assertion, or qualifies it in a manner tantamount to withdrawal? Examples:

• That's funny — not!
• You can have my gun — when you pry it from my from my cold dead fingers.
• I had to think about it — for about five seconds.

A trawl through the list in figure of speech leads me to think it is a species of hyperbaton or paraprosdokian. Or perhaps "irony disclosed"? jnestorius^(talk) 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it is Irony. --201.253.205.216 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of metasyntactic negation: I don't like you; I love you. --Kjoonlee 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

metalinguistic negation. Thanks, Kjoon, I'm fond of you too :) jnestorius^(talk) 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)