Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 May 10

Language desk
< May 9	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 11 >

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 10

"... not creates it"

"Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus, not creates it."

Is this sentence correct? It looks wrong to me, and yet I don't know how else to say it without repeating the subject, as in "Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus; it doesn't create it." Is there a way? 86.167.19.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's wrong. It should read "Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus, not create it. You don't say Wikipedia does not creates it, lessen you talks like some of the folks in another question a bit further up. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"not create it" sounds even worse to me than "not creates it". I can't believe that one is correct. 03:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.19.50 (talk)

There's a tension here: when "not" is used, it's normally in something like "it does not create it", and it's "not create" regardless of the person or number ("I/you/he/she/we/you/they do not create it"). So, when we see "... not creates it", that rings alarm bells. I think we have to parse it as "I do/you do/he, she does/we, you, they do (not create) it", rather than "I etc do not (create) it". That means it's always "not create". But I have to agree with 86.167 here. The technically correct version sounds just as wrong as the original version. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(OP) I am unconvinced that Clarityfiend's suggestion is even "technically" correct. 86.148.152.2 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I like the sentence "Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus; it doesn't create it." better. It seems clearer and less awkward to me. --Jayron32 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia not Yoda speaking. Gzuckier (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus; NOT: wikipedia creates scholarly consensus (it). Vespine (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the second part is missing the verb for Wikipedia to act on (for want of a better term). The proper, two sentence form would be "Wikipedia follows consensus. Wikipedia does not create consensus", so the sentence should read "Wikipedia follows consensus, does not create consensus", though that looks odd without inserting an "it" before "does". If you really want to not repeat the subject, then "Wikipedia follows consensus, rather than creating consensus" seems like the best way. MChesterMC (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Or more concisely, "Wikipedia follows consensus, rather than creating it". On reflection, the problem with the OP's original is that it assumes a parallel structure where none in fact exists, and no matter which number is chosen for the verb "create", it won't work because the whole construction of the latter phrase rests on a false premise. There is zero parallelality (?) between "... follows ... " and "... does not create ...". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not create scholarly consensus, but follows it" would work, though. Tevildo (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it, that's because "but" is a proper conjunction, so the two sentences remain independent. Tevildo (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "no parallelism" argument. "Wikipedia is following scholarly consensus, not creating it", "Wikipedia has followed scholarly consensus, not created it", etc., all work, so there ought to be sufficient parallelism in "Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus, ..." if only the correct form of wording could be found. 86.148.152.2 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And that crystallises the issue beautifully. The writer was also going on the assumption that "there ought to be sufficient parallelism" for him to write what he wrote. But it clearly does not work, and neither does any other form of the verb "create", and that is why we're having this question asked in the first place.

"Subject <verb>s object" is NOT parallel to "subject does not <verb> object". There are two verbs in the latter one ("does" and "create" in our example), compared to only one in the former ("follows"), and the original ending "not creates it" omits any mention of one of the verbs ("does"). In a sentence like "He does this, not that", we don't need to repeat "does" because it's already mentioned and the structure is parallel. But in the sentence we're talking about, "does" is omitted entirely, which is a crying shame because the word "not" absolutely requires it. We could rewrite it as "Wikipedia does follow scholarly consensus, not create it", but that would require a certain context calling for "does" to be used as a form of emphasis ("Father, I did tell the truth" cf. "Father, I told the truth"). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically it is fine as is. Wikipedia creates it not is the obsolescent simple negation without the emphatic do. "Not creating it" will work if you can't get over the olden form. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus, not creating it" doesn't sound right to me at all, if that's what you're suggesting. 86.148.152.2 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Other options: "Wikipedia follows, but does not create, scholarly consensus." "Scholarly consensus is followed by Wikipedia, not created." "On Wikipedia, scholarly consensus is followed, not created." (Begotten, not made?) Lesgles (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what Medeis is after would be "Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus, but creates it not." (neither doth it spin). That still needs a conjunction, though. "Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus, creating it not." might also work, but *"Wikipedia follows scholarly consensus, creates it not." wouldn't. Tevildo (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, a conjunction would be necessary. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In his 1953 thesis, Alvar Ellegård showed how the use of periphrastic do progressed through different syntactic environments during Early Modern English. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions)

Those forms, though, are obsolete. They are not contemporary English. I think that the grammatical rule in contemporary English is that when a predicated with a simple present tense verb is contrasted with a predicate containing a negated simple present tense verb, a conjunction is needed to link the second clause to the shared subject. For some other verb forms in this relationship, no conjunction is needed. Marco polo (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or would the plural form be perfectly acceptable ("Wikipedians follow scholarly consensus, not create it")? If so, that would mean that in principle the original sentence would pass, except that it is blocked by the odd juxtaposition of "not" with the -s verb form. Victor Yus (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's just you. :) Seriously, it makes no difference whether it's singular or plural. "Not" needs a "does" (or in this case a "do") somewhere in front of it, and that's what's catastrophically lacking, as I pointed out above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, coming back to it, I think you're right. Since the plural form is identical to the infinitive, it creates an impression that it might be OK, though when my grammar parser is working at full steam I think it would reject it. Victor Yus (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The missing "do" is the periphrastic do. See QGLS 3.37 and H&P 2.1.1. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thanks, Atethnekos. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact this may be somewhat linked to the topic discussed at Verb phrase#VPs in dependency grammars - that finite verb phrases don't always behave like grammatical constituents (so here, the "A not B" construction doesn't work when A and B are both finite verb phrases, although it would if they were non-finite phrases, for example). Another semi-relevant article might be Stripping (linguistics) - the section on not-stripping. Victor Yus (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Rice cake ingredients in Chinese need translation.

Can someone who is a good reader of Chinese please look at this product's ingredients and tell me if it has any wheat (barley, rye or related grain) or gluten in it? My housemate is on a gluten free diet and some fresh rice noodles I've seen in the past have wheat as an ingredient. Most dry rice noodles don't, they are just rice flour and water, but these "rice cakes" are sort of in between, so not sure. This was brought overseas so it has no English ingredients and google hasn't come up with anything useful. My wife brought home about 10 packets so would be great to know if my housemate can eat them. Thanks in advance. Vespine (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The ingredients are rice, water, salt, and food additive (sodium metabisulfite). Oda Mari (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Big rice and consumable salt. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an unhelpful gloss. The Chinese word "大米" means a grain borne by Oryza sativa, which in English is just called "Rice", unless you want to distinguish by species, in which case it is "Asian rice". There's no such thing as "big rice".

What you translate as "consumable salt" usually translates to table salt in English. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, big rice and small rice. Yeah, table salt. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks heaps, so no wheat or gluten in the ingredients, that's what I was hoping. Vespine (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Learning several languages at the same time

I've Googled up conflicting advice on this, so asking here as well. Is it useful to study more than one foreign language concurrently? Assuming enough hours of regular practice, of course. I can imagine it might help me get a feel for the patterns of each language more quickly, but I can also imagine it just being a confusing mess that holds me back. Has this ever been properly researched?

In case it's relevant, I have a lazy-expat level of French that I'd like to sort out, and I need to learn competent business Russian by September. In Russian I can read Cyrillic letters (slowly), but struggle to write anything much, and I can say a few basic tourist phrases. In French I have an extensive vocabulary, decent reading and listening skills, a tolerable accent (or so I'm told!) but pretty poor grammar. 78.105.228.3 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wir lernten im Gymnasium quatre langues différentes simultanément, German, English, French and Russian, Русский Я забыл, the rest works. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent :)) Do you think studying them together helped you, or would it have been easier to focus on one language per year? 78.105.228.3 (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Start learning languages early in life. Later you might as well not bother. My Russian (two years), my Arabic (one year) - all gone. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! "Later you might as well not bother" - that I heartily disagree with. It very much depends on how much reinforcement you're able to get, and the sooner the better, obviously. If you're able to spend time in that linguistic environment, whether by travel to the country or living amongst speakers of the language, or by reading newspapers and novels, watching movies and TV, listening to "ethnic" radio, and so on, this all helps. In my case, I was interested in Russian from about the age of 10 and managed to learn the alphabet in my teens, and picked up a handful of words, but did not study the language as such until I was 28. While studying at uni I met my wife, who was a Russian speaker from birth. So I was able to practise on her and her parents and other friends I met through them. My Russian pronunciation was always good (I had good teachers) and I'm told it's still pretty good (I'm into my 60s now). But over the years since my wife and I said "Do svidaniya" and my interests have broadened and deepened, I've lost the vocabulary. Not totally, of course; I'd still be a lot more confident getting around Moscow than a complete beginner, which I attribute to that reinforcement I was able to have after finishing my formal study of Russian. I appreciate not everybody is able to have my exact experience, but anyone who's interested in furthering their study has many options available to them. So, later you might very much bother. It's up to you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have studied up to three languages at a time. The only problem I ever had was that Spanish would occasionally interfere with recall of French vocabulary. I could imagine learning French, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian all at once or in combination could be problematic given they are often very close but differ in detail--French and Italian using to be in the perfect, French having to go + infinitive for the immediate future, Spanish having to go + a + infinitive. Portuguses and Spanish often looking indistinguishable when written. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Pp.paul's teenage experience (simultaneously starting 4 different languages) is the ideal way to learn, especially for an adult learner. However, it sounds as though you want to work on just two languages. You want to learn Russian from the rudiments and you want to improve your French. That sounds doable if you have enough time at your disposal. Learning "competent business Russian" by September, though, could be challenging, depending on your idea of competence. Russian grammar is rather complex. I'd think you'd need to spend more than 10 hours per week just on Russian to have a hope of being effective in a business setting by September. You'd need much more than 10 hours if you don't have a bit of a knack for languages. I'd have an instructor prepare a course that brings you to your goal in 13-15 weekly units (depending on when in September you want to finish), and see how long it takes you to master each unit. As for French, you could certainly make some progress if you have additional time available. I am on a comparable path myself. I am learning Mandarin Chinese from the rudiments (though I've been at it for 2 years now). At the same time I am brushing up on my German, which is good, if not always idiomatic. Two languages at very different levels seem doable to me. Contrary to what Pp.paul says, I started Chinese at age 49 and have made good progress. Retaining languages later in life is just a matter of sporadic practice. Marco polo (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what Marco Polo says. If you have enough time, there is no reason not to learn Russian and French at once. If you were learning Italian and Spanish at the same time, it might well be a different story. However I do find age makes a difference if you want to reach a very high level of ability. I started learning French seriously at 12 (although I had had a bit of it in earlier grades) and was able to achieve native-like competency in it. To learn French to that level, I probably had to work on it about three hours a day every day for three years. I will never be able to do the same thing for Russian, which I started learning at 15, or Spanish, at 25, no matter how hard I work at them. While I believe that with further work it might be possible for me to achieve near-native ability in respects other than accent, it would be harder than it was for French and at a minimum I will always have a foreign accent in those languages.96.46.198.58 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a nice relevant site. Start with the About Me page. Gil_mo (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally, magical skills don't seem to transfer between languages, and learning multiple languages at once is for the talented. However, I don't know of any reason why it can't be done, and students have long studied Latin and Greek together, not one, but two dead languages. You don't have to be a genius. You can read this for a case that (roughly) counts against the idea of simple transfer between languages, but the alternative view (that language skills transfer, and that there is some general skill called "interlanguage") is presented in Cummins and Swain, 1986, Bilingualism in Education. I lean strongly towards trusting anything by Bialystok, and she seems to lean against a belief in transfer (the paper is on a different topic to your question, but it counts in that direction). That doesn't rule out learning two languages at once, but expect some destructive interference, and expect to need at least a bit of extra time. My own experience with learning languages is that it really matters to put in the hard yards, and develop a serious revision programme. Hours alone won't do anything magic - you need to focus your energies productively on revision as well as learning. IBE (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Learning Latin and Greek together is a bit easier because you don't really need to learn how to speak them. Learning a modern language that way is much easier too - I could read French fluently long before I could speak it properly, just because I never paid any attention to speaking it when I learned it in school... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've studied several languages in adulthood, and my experience inclines me to believe that working the foreign language part of your brain makes it stronger. It's even possible, I believe, for a dormant language you know pretty well to get better during a period of relative disuse because you've been studying and practicing other languages. For example, I believe my confidence and fluency in French (learned in H.S.) got better as I went and studied a bunch of languages in college. I know that doesn't directly answer the question, but I do also believe there's no detriment to studying multiple languages at the same time. Old wives' tales. YMMV. Wareh (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Kanji variants

Hi, please take a look at:

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9086/kanjivariants2.png

On the LEFT hand side of each pair is what I believe to be the usual modern Japanese form of a character. On the RIGHT hand side is an alternative form, with the feature I'm interested in highlighted. What I would like to know, for each pair, is the status of the right-hand variant form in modern Japanese (e.g. "never used", "occasionally used", or whatever). Thank you! 86.148.152.2 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the font. In handwriting it will not matter, as most people write in various cursive ways. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about printed characters, not handwriting. I know it depends on the font because all those characters are from one font or another. What I want to know, specifically, is which of those font styles are common/uncommon/unknown in Japan, as opposed to China or other places where Chinese characters may be used. 86.148.152.2 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1 looks a bit strange, but is understandable.

• 2 is not used normally, but is still understandable.
• 3 would be understandable.
• 4 is actually normal.
• 5 is quite common.
• 6 is very archaic.
• 7 can be used.
• 8 is normal handwriting.
• 9 is fine, too.
• 10 is also normal handwriting.
• 11 is handwriting.
• 12 I am not sure. This looks Chinese.

KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is interesting. I am slightly surprised about #4. Does the same apply to other characters that include the "rice field" element, or is this one a special case? 86.171.42.175 (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice question. It inspires me how the reference desk can answer questions like this. Thank you, KageTora. – b_jonas 16:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1 Never used. The one on the right is zh simplified. wikt:茎
• 2 Occasionally used, mostly in personal names and proper names like a restaurant name. The four stroke is older way of writing. But it gives a bit snobbish/affected impression.
• 3 Never used. The one on the right is zh simplified. See wikt:営
• 4 Never used. The one on the right is zh simplified. See wikt:憎
• 5 Acceptable variant when used as a radical, but not so often used today.
• 6 The difference is only the design of font. The one on the right is more like handwriting. See [1] and [2].
• 7 Accepted. The one on the right is the traditional form.wikt:抱
• 8 The difference is only the design of font. But we don't write ホ, but 木 in Japan.
• 9 Acceptable variant.
• 10 The one on the right is the traditional form.
• 11 Never used. The one on the right is zh character. See wikt:望
• 12 The one on the right is the correct character. The one on the left is a variant, widely used though. Strangely, most computer fonts do not have the correct character. Oda Mari (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mari. On the basis of your reply I will undo my surprise at #4. Does #12 apply to all characters that have that element, such as 葛, 渇, 喝, 掲, 謁? (As displayed for me now on this page, some of those have the right-hand style, and some have the left-hand style.) 86.171.42.175 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as for 褐, the left-hand style is the standard and the right-hand style is the traditional as the character is in the Jōyō kanji list. When jōyō kanji was made after the Second World War, the kanji like 渇 喝, 掲, and 謁 included in the list were simplified. The standard of those kanji became the simplified shinjitai. But 葛 was not included in the list and not simplified. Kyūjitai was the standard of it and still is. That's the beginning of the problem and when they created computer fonts they applied the simplification style to the non-simplified kanji. See Extended shinjitai and Hyōgaiji. As for 葛, JIS-X-0208 used the traditional in the 1978 version, but the simplified was used in the 1983 version and then JIS-X-0213 restored the traditional in 2004. Katsushika, Tokyo and Katsushika Hokusai should be written with the traditional, but Katsuragi, Nara should be written with the simplified. See [3] and ja:異体字セレクタ. It's really a complicated story. As far as I know, it's impossible to type or see both characters on a Windows computer. Oda Mari (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)