Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 February 28

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 28

Xavier in Arabic

Which is a more accurate translation of "Xavier": اكزيفير or كزافييه? Thanks! 64.229.181.3 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The first seems to be more American English based, the second more British English based. A really "accurate" version would presumably be based on the original language (Spanish?), not English... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The Arabic-language Wikipedia counterpart to the Francis Xavier article has كسفاريوس ; I would feel strongly inclined to use that, unless there was a specific valid reason to use an alternative... AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Fransīs Ksafāriyūs"? It's seems the first is from English, the second is from Latin. A little macaronic.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Both transliterations seem acceptable to me. The first assumes an American English accent, while the second omits the last consonant (r), giving it a French accent. Hia10 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia on?

On Wikipedia and English prepositions. "I am an editor on the Arctic Wikipedia and an administrator at Commons". Would the preposition in be totally out of place here? Is anything in the Wikipedia? Am I in Wikipedia if there is an article written about me? --Pxos (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say the following:

• "I am an editor on Arctic Wikipedia and an administrator at Commons" (note that I omitted "the").

• "X is in Wikipedia" (again omitting "the").

• "I am in Wikipedia" (if there was an article on me). StuRat (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"of" works better for the frigid tome. And yes, you'd be in Wikipedia if Pxosmania were to strike the unsuspecting masses. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Of" really works better. I am ... Pxos of Wikipedia (listen) 04:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat's version, but I would say "I am an editor on Wikipedia" or "I am an editor on the English WP", note the "the", which I think is needed. I agree that "of" is also suitable for the last case, but for some reason I'd prefer "on" for both. I don't think there is a given answer, I think you make one up and stick to it. "On" seems more natural, and emphasises that you are on the project, rather than saying that you are an editor, and Wikipedia is the particular thing you happen to edit. Just my take, IBE (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You would not say "I am an editor on the Encyclopaedia Britannica". You'd say "at". Another solution is to reword: "I contribute to Arctic Wikipedia". 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone elaborate here for me? I agree you would say "at" Britannica, but that is a bit more official, and you mean you are formally employed there. I'm thinking that WP needs a different analogy, and is more like a project. Eg. "I'm a new recruit on the Hoover Dam construction project". Yes, you can reword your way around it, but that should not be needed if you are just searching for the right preposition. IBE (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd be more inclined to say "I'm an editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica" (no "the"). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think 'I am an editor on the English WP' is just short for 'I am an editor on the English-language version of Wikipedia', so the 'the' is needed, unlike 'I am an editor on Wikipedia'. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What about "She's in television"? Is e.g. Sue Gardner in Wikipedia, or in the Foundation, of the Foundation, or perhaps with the Foundation? If "wikipedia" became a generic noun, would the very active editors perhaps then be "in wikipedia" or just "on it" on and on? --Pxos (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In that sense, "Steve's in television" seems to be more like a shorthand for "Steve is employed within the field of television". Someone who is "in television" is understood to work more or less full-time and earn income from television. But, "Steve's in wikipedia" seems more like "There is an article written about Steve within wikipedia". It's an oddly slippery usage! SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Spanish punctuation

This is a phrase said by a child: "Mas mama" 1. In English, there would be a comma between the words, because "More, Mama" (Mama, give me more) means something different from "More Mama" (give me more of my Mama). Is the same distinction made in Spanish and is it indicated by a comma in the same way? ("Mas, mama") If not, how is it indicated? 2. Is mama capitalized in Spanish or not? Gracias (my only spanish word!). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you also seem to know at least the words más and mamá! ;) Note the acute accents, though. Mamá is normally not capitalized, but the comma is used the same way as in English: "¡Más, mamá!" = "More, mama!" "¡Más mamá!" = "More mama!" Mamá is standard, but mama (with the stress on the first syllable, and hence no accent) is also used "in popular and rural speech".[1] Lesgles (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you so much for the very clear explanation and all the corrections! Happy to get the exclamation points - had not even thought of that, and I had not known about the accents either. I'm very grateful. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)