Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 July 24

Language desk
< July 23	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 24

Connecting the unconnectable

What is it called when 2 facts that have no connection, other than both relating to the same person, are put together in a sentence like this (from Sally Ride):

• Of Norwegian ancestry, she had one sibling, Karen "Bear" Ride, who is a Presbyterian minister.

What has her Norwegian ancestry got to do with how many siblings she had? I see this sort of thing all over WP, and I often wonder what causes editors to combine unrelated facts in this way. I could understand it better if it had been:

• Of Norwegian ancestry, she had blue eyes and blonde hair.

Also, what's the introductory phrase/clause Of Norwegian ancestry an example of? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an absolute construction, particularly the genitive absolute. I would say it's not totally egregious, since comments about her ancestry and her siblingry both deal with her family(ry). μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not a hanging offence here, but I could find some real doozies. One I saw the other day went something like: "Born in 1823, his first success as a composer came with his oratorio "Blah-blah" in 1851". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is supposed to be some sort of relevance, and it does raise the question whether all Norwegians have one sibling. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks for the answer to my other question. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a fairly common construction in obituaries, presumably because having one short fact per sentence might enter into Hemingway territory. I knew it wouldn't take me long to find one in the wild; this one is from today's AP science wire:

Born on May 26, 1951, in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley, [Sally] Ride became fascinated with science early on, playing with a chemistry kit and telescope.

Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Given that many of our biographical articles are sourced from obits, it's no wonder that obituary style has crept in all over the place. A lot of editors seems to feel that at least one example of this type of construction per article (sometimes even one per section) is essential for good writing. How mistaken they are. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say it's a non sequitur.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Born on May 26" is a (past) participial phrase, not a genitive absolute. Non sequitur is usually used of logical arguments, not parts of a sentence. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From a strict grammatical sense, the sentence mentioned by JackofOz above is wrong.

• "Born in 1823, his first success as a composer came with his oratorio "Blah-blah" in 1851"

You need a noun, after "Born in 1823", otherwise it is is considered a Dangling modifier. The sentence should be re-written; one correct version is as follows:

• "Born in 1823, John first experienced success as a composer with his oratorio "Blah-blah" in 1851"

The original sentence makes it seem that the success (instead of John) was born in 1823, which is illogical. Modifier phrases can be tricky. _{Hisham1987 (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)}

Your point is valid (even though Wikipedia seems to provide safe haven for as many dangling modifiers as people can dream up). However, this thread wouldn't really be the best place to make your point, as the point of my example was to show the apparent disconnection between being born in 1823 and having his first success as a composer 28 years later. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

JackofOZ: Oops. Sorry this came out the wrong way. I was actually trying to explain to the OP that although connecting seemingly unrelated ideas is discouraged, the English grammar permits us to do so - through the use of phrase modifiers that modify nouns. For example:

• "Born in 1823, John first experienced success as a composer with his oratorio "Blah-blah" in 1851"

This sentence is grammatically correct; however, it is tedious to read since it contains two unrelated facts modifying the same noun (John): Grammatically permissible but discouraged. _{Hisham1987 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)}

I'm the OP here. Sure, many sentences are perfectly grammatical in themselves, but fail on other grounds, such as illogicality ("Three plus three equals 97"), inaccuracy ("Henry VIII died in 1947"), impossibility ("My father had 7,328 siblings"), etc. The sentences I'm asking about are generally grammatical in themselves but fail on the ground of connecting things that should not be connected. If, in addition, they happen to be constructed ungrammatically via the use of dangling modifiers or whatever else, that's a further nail in their coffin but that is merely the icing on the cake, to mix my metaphors. As I say, I don't disagree with your point, but it's not central to my question. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's call it a kitchen sink sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if Fowler's Modern English Usage has a clever term for it, but it's impossible to find anything in Fowler because I don't know where my copy is. —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I like that. You should see the ... matter that is sometimes discovered in my kitchen sink. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, better: grab bag sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Spanish translation

Can someone help me translate this paragrpah for an article? The google translations are a bit hard to understand.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

El sepulcro que contiene los restos de Inés Rodríguez Girón es más pequeño que el que contiene los restos de su esposo. El estilo demuestras que ambos fueron realizados en la misma época. El sepulcro sólo tiene labor escultórica en los costados, pero no en la cabecera ni en los pies. Sobre la tapa del sepulcro aparece colocada la estatua yacente que representa a la difunta. La cabeza de Inés Rodríguez descansa sobre tres almohadones, al igual que la de su esposo.

It's demuestra , not demuestras. Following google translate with the corrected verb and a few tweaks: "The tomb containing the remains of Inés Rodríguez Girón is smaller than the one containing the remains of her husband. The style shows that both were done at the same time. The tomb only has sculpture work on the sides, but not at the head or feet. On the lid of the tomb appears a recumbent statue representing the deceased. Ines Rodriguez's head rests on three pillows, like that of her husband." μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

expression about Great Inventions

"It is solemnly hoped that someday a genius will come along and invent something that will make golf unnecessary." It's is just one of the ten expressions I'm studying and I don't understand what it means. Any insight about it is appreciated. 203.240.243.100 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "It is solemnly hoped that" -> I/We wish that
• "someday" -> at some time in the future
• "a genius" -> a clever person
• "will come along and invent something that will" -> will make something new that will
• "make golf unnecessary" mean that golf is not needed

"I wish that at some time in the future a clever person will make something new that will mean that golf is not needed" - that is, the writer does not enjoy the game of Golf, so he/she is making a joke that they want someone to have an idea that means they don't need to play any more. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like something Douglas Adams would write. Of course, is golf really necessary to begin with? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the context in which you're studying these ten expressions? Who chose them, and what are you hoping to achieve? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a caption to a cartoon in The New Yorker. A google search gets a bunch of posts in fora around Nov 2011 and nothing else. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct sentence

Check which of the following sentences (bold parts) are correct according to English grammar.
1) I am good at Maths, Physics, Biology, History, etc.
I am good at Maths, Physics, Biology, History etc.
2) Mahatma Gandhi said, "Honesty is the best policy."
Mahatma Gandhi said, "Honesty is the best policy".
--Sunny Singh 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs)

We know that these are homework questions, because we had to do questions like these ourselves. Have a look at our article comma and also check your textbook or class notes. Note that comma rules vary in English-speaking countries, and punctuation of reported speech can differ between manuscript and printed text. Come back if you still have questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually "grammar" at all, but differing punctuation conventions... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The first of each pair is the correct sentence. I have never seen anyone use etc. without a preceding comma. (It needs a period after it, BTW, since it is an abbreviation.) The placement of a period outside of quotation marks is encouraged at wikipedia when the punctuation isn't logically part of the quote itself. This can contradict standard usage which demands we always place the punctuation inside. In this case wikipedia would go with convention and the first sentence, since Gandhi made a complete statement ending in a period that we are quoting in full. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation_inside_or_outside. But keep in mid those guidelines are not generally accpeted, most people still insist that this example wikipedia gives as correct:

Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable".

is improper. I happen to prefer wikipedia's conventions and use it wherever I am not writing according to a teacher's or employer's standard. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say "standard usage" and "most people", I think you mean "standard usage in the USA" and "most people in the USA". Elsewhere, there is no rule demanding we always place the punctuation inside. If the punctuation is not inherently part of the quotation but simply part of the sentence in which the quotation appears, it is placed outside the quotation in most parts of the anglo world. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for an English or Australian manual of style published before 1990 which would mandate in favor of the period outside the quotes format of the "Arthur" example above? I have a Kiwi friend aged 50 who would have a heart attack if he saw that in print. I have never heard that the US has some odd preference in this matter compared to tradition. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't wikipedia's conventions downcase "honesty"? See [1]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that change to the MOS was ill-considered and not in accord with the usual capitalization of quotations that are complete sentences. I've just reverted it. Deor (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference for Medeis's query: Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Second Edition) (published by the OUP copyright 1968, reprinted 1982 (with corrections) says, under its section on 'Stops' sub-heading 'Inverted Commas' starting with the first full paragraph of the second column on page 591:

Questions of order between inverted commas and stops are much debated and a writer's personal preference often conflicts with the style rules of editors and publishers. There are two schools of thought, which might be called the conventional and the logical. The conventional prefers to put stops within the inverted commas, if it can be done without ambiguity, on the ground that this has a more pleasing appearance. The logical punctuates according to sense, and puts them outside except when they actually form part of the quotation.

It is the logical format that I was taught in Canada in the 1950s. Neither Gowers (who did the revisions in the second edition) nor Fowler ranked one above the other.

I also have a copy of The Macmillan Company's (New York) English Arts and Skills (1961), published for use in grade 10 of the Catholic Education Division which says the following on page 375, all in bold face:

3. When the end of the quotation is also the end of the sentence, the period falls inside the quotation marks. (examples omitted)

4. If the quoted words are a question or an exclamation, the question mark or the exclamation point falls inside the quotation marks. (examples omitted)

5. If the entire sentence is a question or an exclamation, the exclamation point or question mark falls outside the quotation marks. (examples omitted)

Nothing wishy-washy when the representatives of the Pope speak. Bielle (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bielle, that's great. Odd to see the British preferring the logical over the traditional, given their spelling habits. I am surprised I never came across this in school, since we were warned of the royalist's generally bad habits. Perhaps it would have been too tempting. My Enzed friend will have a heart attack. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We like to say the NZers are "more English than the English". How refreshing to find a counter-example. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

etc. without a preceding comma doesn't bother me (unlike Medeis). I'm also anti-Oxford. —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, if you look again at the quotation from Fowler' text, you will note that no preference is stated. In fact, as I read it, it is a very nice example of NPOV with respect to the two then-prevalent patterns. Bielle (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Only one of those sentences is correct in American English. Math is not maths so both in that set are wrong. Rmhermen (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Even I knew the OP wasn't asking for the correct way to abbreviate mathematics. You tempt me to toss a vache at you autrefois. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Italian after French - what to concentrate on

I'm learning Italian now after learning French quite deeply (for a foreign language), and am finding it quite easy due to how similar they are. Of course, this comes at a cost: while I can quickly guess the meaning of almost any sentence, perhaps I come to the wrong conclusion. So, are there "false friends" or the like for an English speaker who's learned French and is learning Italian? What are things to focus on (missing from French but in Italian; or quite different in Italian while resembling the French structurally; or simply structural differences I might not notice, producing sentences "a la francaise" without noticing how different Italian is.) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You could try looking at FR-Wikitionary: Annexe:Faux-amis en italien, or FR-WikiBooks: Vrais amis italiens. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

thank you; I would appreciate even more like this. Neither link has any grammar mentioned at all. As someone who learned French well as an adult, it's tempting to "assume" things behave the same. I guess the French might have less of a problem seeing the differences (just as when learning German it's not really similar to English to me as an English speaker, and I don't use a lot of anglicisms; but Romance language speakers who first learn English then German or vice versa tend to get a lot more jumbled up!!). 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You might have to be careful with auxiliary verbs: sono stato vs j'ai été. —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

French poem translation

Hello, I would like to kindly request a translation of a poem by Cocteau found here. I'm interested in understanding what the poem tries to convey, so it would be nice to know what a french-speaker perceives from this poem in its original form. (For some reason the text uses double slashes for line breaks and quotation marks for stanza breaks.) Thanks in advance. --Kreachure (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This blog has another variant of that poem (scroll down to Phénixologie). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, here's the text in poem form if it helps anyone translate. I had been warned to not put poems here because of copyright but whatever, I guess.

" phenixologie" à Lucien Clergue photographe ". Poësie autographe, signée. Baux-de-provence, 1959 ; une page 1 / 2 in-4. Au début cette note du poëte. " Ce poëme doit paraître comme préface à l'album des photographies de Lucien Clergue prises autour du travail de mon fil : Le teStament d'orphée.

Jusqu'où veut aller ce rêve taciturne ?

le monde en soi-même était mal travesti

la gloire abusant de son soleil nocturne

nimbait une Minerve au visage menti.

On les connaît ces espions romanesques

en fatal équilibre au bord de l'âge mûr

De Chef-d'oeuvre en Chef-d'OEuvre elles deviennent fresques

Douze jeunes soldats les clouant contre un mur.

Un pied sur le sol ferme un autre dans le sang

Je boîte vers l'appel du Val d'enfer des Baux

j'entre par les trous d'une funèbre éponge

Dans la nuit attentive au choix de nos tombeaux.

If you're having trouble with the meaning, then the translation alone will do. I really think it's not that long. Again, thanks in advance. --Kreachure (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The version above hardly seems correct. I have found this here:

“Jusqu’où veut-il aller ce rêve taciturne

où le monde en soi-même était travesti

Où la gloire brillait de son soleil nocturne

Nimbant une Minerve au visage meurtri.

On les connaît ces espionnes romanesques

En total équilibre au bord de l`âge mûr

De chef-d’oeuvre en chef-d'oeuvre elles deviennent fresques

Douze jeunes soldats les clouant contre un mur

Un pied sur le sol ferme un autre dans le songe

Je boite vers lappel du Val d’Enfer des Baux

Et j’orne par les trous de sa funèbre éponge

Une nuit attentive au choix de mes tombeaux.”

Here's a very loose and imperfect translation based on what I suspect is a flawed original lacking proper punctuation at best:

“Jusqu’où veut-il aller ce rêve taciturne

How far does this taciturn dream wish to go

où le monde en soi-même était travesti

where the world-in-itself was disguised,

Où la gloire brillait de son soleil nocturne

where shone the glory of the midnight sun,

Nimbant une Minerve au visage meurtri.

haloing a Minerva with a bruised face?

On les connaît ces espionnes romanesques

They were known, these novelesque spies

En total équilibre au bord de l`âge mûr

all balanced on the edge of middle age

De chef-d’oeuvre en chef-d'oeuvre elles deviennent fresques

from masterpiece to masterpiece they become frescoes:

Douze jeunes soldats les clouant contre un mur

twelve young soldiers, stuck against a wall

Un pied sur le sol ferme un autre dans le songe

one foot on solid earth, the other in a dream

Je boite vers lappel du Val d’Enfer des Baux

I limp towards the call from the valley of a leased-out hell

Et j’orne par les trous de sa funèbre éponge

and I ornament with the holes of its funereal sponge

Une nuit attentive au choix de mes tombeaux.”

for one careful night, the choice of my tomb

μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Douze jeunes soldats les clouant contre un mur" should be "twelve young soldiers stucking sticking them [the frescoes] against a wall" — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted the subject and verb as inverted here, seeing the soldiers (the twelve apostles?) turned to frescoes--a huge problem is the omitted punctuation--and the feminine form espionne makes no sense. Maybe the soldiers are nailing the spies. μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I limp towards the Hell Valley of Les Baux. ... I decorate through the holes (or, with the holes) of its funereal sponge//a night that is attentive to the choice of my tomb. Near the start, "travestied" is closer than "disguised", with the possibility of the transvestism connotation. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that "Val d'Enfer des Baux" should be translated, may be it's worth a note to give an explanation. As mentionned here above Les Baux-de-Provence is a village located in South of France. Baux, in Occitan language, means "overhang", "cliff", "rocky escarpment" (see French WP [2]). This meaning is far away from "leased-out"! "Val d'Enfer" means "Hell valley". It's a common name for a place in France. I don't know if such a place exists in les Baux-de-Provence. (Aside: bauxite, the mineral from which aluminium is extracted, has its name derived from "Les Baux-de-Provence") — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for the translations and corrections. I think I can discern the meaning of most of the poem after chewing it over for a while. I don't think I'll ever find out what the heck a "funereal sponge" is, though... :) Kreachure (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight the fact that Baux is capitalized leaves only the option of a place name. "Disguised" goes well with "the world in itself". A funeral sponge is used to clean the body before burial, which goes along with the twelve spies nailed to the wall--imagine the painting of the last supper.

(ec) Well, that solves the funeral sponge mystery! Baux is indeed where the poem was signed (and/or written?). The soldiers being the 12 apostles is an interesting idea, but as you remarked above, the 12 soldiers seem to be the ones who pin the spies-turned-frescoes onto the wall, and the spies themselves are female to begin with. --Kreachure (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Don'r rely on the translation being right; neither quoted version of the poem seems entirely correct. The accents and almost the certainly the punctuation is incorrect in both. If éponge were supposed to be épongé, for example, the meaning would be totally different. If anyone has a better source he should speak up. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The accents seem correct except in the bilingual part: "Je boite vers lappel du Val d’Enfer des Baux" should spell "Je boîte vers l'appel du Val d'Enfer des Baux". If you are particular: "chef-d'œuvre", not "chef d'oeuvre" (ligature). And trust me, it cannot be "épongé" instead of éponge. About the ponctuation: a full stop/period seems to be missing after "mur". Cocteau could have not use commas on purpose. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But compare lines 3-6 above: menti/meurtri, fatal/total, abusant/brillait, etc. The second version generally seems more likely, but not in all cases, and it is not unflawed. I don't think we can be sure we are translating what was actually written. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutly right. But it is possible that there exists at least two variants. I don't think it's matter of accentuation nor punctuation (in all variants commas are not used). Unfortunatly, it is obvious that all Web copies are flawed.

catalogue.drouot.com: "autour du travail de mon fil : Le teStament d'orphée" → "autour du travail de mon film : Le Testament d'Orphée"; "ces espions romanesques ... elles deviennent fresques" → "ces espionnes romanesques ... elles deviennent fresques" or (I don't think so) "ces espions romanesques ... ils deviennent fresques" ; upper cases missing at the beginning of some verses.

passouline.blog.lemonde.fr: "où le monde en soi-même était travesti" → "Où le monde en soi-même était travesti"; "De chef-d’oeuvre elles deviennent fresques" → "De chef-d’œuvre en chef-d'œuvre elles deviennent fresques"; "Je boite vers lappel du Val d’Enfer des Baux" → "Je boîte vers l'appel du Val d’Enfer des Baux"

oversized.over-blog.com/article-kholle-de-litte-numero-3-48457525.html: "où le monde en soi-même était travesti" → "Où le monde en soi-même était travesti"; "Je boite vers lappel du Val d’Enfer des Baux" → "Je boîte vers l'appel du Val d’Enfer des Baux"

— AldoSyrt (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Six questions left in french

I'm looking for a clear and concise way of saying "There are six questions left" for a questionnaire in French that will be read by French native speakers. My co-worker and I are French-as-a-second-language, so we can't quite tell what to say, but nothing we can think of feel right.

We have so far (accents not included)

• Il y a six questions a la fin
• Il y a six questions en suspense
• Il y a six question de plus

Any other ideas? Mingmingla (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Il y a six questions qui reste
• Il reste seulement six questions

--Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Il reste seulement six questions should be Ils restent seulement six questions. and Il y a six questions qui reste should be Il y a six questions qui restent. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Il reste seulement six questions" is the correct sentence. Because "Il reste" is a "forme impersonnelle", like "il pleut". Hence the singular form. Whereas "Il y a six questions en suspense" should be "Il y a six questions en suspens." Aside: "Il reste six questions." seems to be the more concise. — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One more: "Six questions restantes..." — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Il ne reste que six questions. Il ne vous reste que six questions. But I'm only near-native, like fhe ofher responses here. You need a native speaker to adjudicate now, preferably someone who has designed questionnaires. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Juste encore six petites questions. Et maintenant pour les dernières questions (il n'en vous reste que six).Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

correction: (il ne vous en reste que six) --Xuxl (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How did I do that! How would you say it XuXl? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Aldo's a native speaker, Judith. And Xuxl too? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The best sentence? It depends on the tone of the questionnaire. In most of cases, the simpler, the better! As a French native speaker, I would say : "Il reste six questions."; if the questionnaire is very long: "Il ne reste que six questions." — AldoSyrt (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Then how about Il y a six questions qui restent? Please tell me the subject-verb agreement is correct. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfect French! — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Have an Arabic speaker translate this Qadafi capture video

Thread retitled from "Have an Arabic speaker translate this Qadafi capture video".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy1dsO-jKd0&feature=player_embedded&bpctr=1343175474&skipcontrinter=1

See, all I understand from the video is "Moammar!" and "Allahu Akbar," (God is Great.)

This was an exciting day for Libyans and pro-democracy individuals worldwide. The moment marked the fall of a die-hard dictator after a rule that spanned longer than I've been alive.

This is why that moment is worth translating.

Now, could anyone translate everything else that was said in the video? I know it's quite a lot of shouts, but please translate whatever is intelligible. Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings), I am changing the heading of this section from Have an Arabic speaker translate this Qadafi capture video to Have an Arabic speaker translate this Qadafi capture video—in order to enable links to the archived section. In the future, someone may wish to link to this discussion in the archives, and square brackets in headings hinder the functioning of section links. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 63#Dysfunctional links in archived section headings (September 2009).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)