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.
Strange Japanese Sign: What is the original intent?edit
Hi,
My friend and i found a rather hilarious and semi-inappropriate looking sign here: Japanese Sign.
I know quite often there are signs like this that look inappropriate if you don't know their meaning. We tried to think of what the image was meaning to show, and thought maybe the person is holding a cell phone. However if it was something like "Don't use phones in airplanes" we figured there would be a big "NO x".
What does the Japanese under the sign actually say, and what is the image intending to depict?
I have no idea what the writing says but my intuition tells me that the sign warns against shining a laser pointer at flying aircraft. Richard Avery (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable as well, as it does look like they are holding a pen. However, i guess i would expect a continuous beam if it were meant to be a laser.
As far as I can tell, the text doesn't actually seem to be Japanese, because some of the characters are Simplified Chinese characters and hence only suitable for Chinese, both on the sign you asked about and on the one above it. Read in Chinese, the intended meaning of 快枪手 would be something like "fast gunman" (although I suspect it's not syntactically a correct phrase, as the attribute marker 的 is missing; Chinese experts will correct me if I'm wrong). The badge at the top left (...是这么自信）is also definitely in Chinese. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure these are not actual warning signs but humorous ones for, say, sticking to the rear window of your car. Also, I agree that the words seem to be in Mandarin rather than Japanese. "快枪手" does indeed mean "fast gunman" in the sense of a marksman who is quick on the draw, but given the illustration on the sign I think it alludes to premature ejaculation. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 08:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Faster than a jet airplane, it seems. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this IS intended to have humor to it, as opposed to something that was just created to be serious, with no thought as to how people could perceive it.... that gives me some relief lol.
216.173.145.47 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What pronunciation of this name would get the fewest strange looks? Generally, but also specifically when referring to Darius I. Thanks! ÷seresin 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
/dəˈraɪəs/ is the usual English rendering, closely paralleling the Greek Δαρειος, with the common rendering of ει as /aɪ/. -- Elphion (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In American it rhymes with "carry us" and I would be confused by "duh RYE us" if said out of context. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Do you have a citation for "the usual English rendering", Elphion? I must say I've only ever heard it as "DAH-ree-əs". -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 16:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Webster's 7th Collegiate, e.g. (and this is an American dictionary, so Medeis's remark must be taken with a grain of salt). I've heard both "derry us" and "dah-rius" for Frenchmen like Milhaud, never for Persians. I don't have a British dictionary that gives a pronunciation for proper names, but I've heard many Brits discussing Greek history, and it's always "duh-RYE-us". -- Elphion (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DAHR would probably be the correct way to say that first syllable, but in America it would typically rhyme with DARE. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, the American dictionaries do all seem to give the duhRYEus pronunciation, which I have never heard at all from an American. Stoopid dickshunaries. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but I recall that a US author (I think it was Isaac Asimov in Second Foundation) assumed this pronunciation as the basis for a character (a school pupil?) having the mockable name of Darius Dust ("dry as dust" - geddit?). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In English, it's correctly pronouned /dəˈraɪəs/ (duh-RYE-us). DARE-ee-us is a common mispronunciation, but is similar to the correct pronunciation in various languages such as German or Hebrew (where it approximates to DAR-ee-OOS).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thus spake Jeffro77! When you learn to spell "pronounced", you can dictate correct pronunciation. But not even then, actually. Unless Jeffro77 has become a Reliable Source. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a dolt. A typo doesn't mean I don't know how to spell. Grow up. Instead of being arrogant, how about you consult a dictionary regarding pronunciation of Darius.[1][2][3][4]Collins English Dictionary—Australian Edition also gives pronunciation as /dəˈraɪəs/.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me. Dictionaries do not prescribe anything. They describe that which has come to their editors' attention. They are as prone to error as any publication, and contain their editors' biases as much as any other publication. As for arrogance, was it you or I who asserted, without any source, what the "correct" pronunciation is? Hmm? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 01:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, all the dictionaries—including Webster, Oxford and Collins—are wrong because JackofOz says so? Whatever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only say it one more time. Dictionaries provide a guideline only; they do not claim to be "right" when it comes to pronunciation, and their editors would not approve of readers going off and claiming so-and-so pronunciation is the only "correct" one just because the dictionary listed it. There is almost no English word that has one and only one correct pronunciation, as there are many, many, many Englishes, each as valid as the other. It's already obvious from the earlier posts in this thread that the pronunciation with the stress on the first syllable is just as common as the one on the second, regardless of what any dictionary might tell you. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 02:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Various editors have already indicated that /dəˈraɪəs/ is the English rendering, and this is the rendering given in dictionaries (already cited) for English variants in 3 major English-speaking nations, including the most authoritative sources. If you or anyone else wants to pronounce it differently, that's fine, and there's no dispute that the pronunciation you prefer is not unheard of, though there's only anecdotal evidence that it's "just as common". (Though if it were just as common, one would imagine that the alternative should have come to the attention of at least one of the editors of one of the major dictionary publishers, which frequently provide various common pronunciations.) Of course, if it were true that "what any dictionary might tell you" should simply be ignored, why bother providing pronunciation keys in dictionaries at all? (That's a rhetorical question, but I'm sure you'll want the last word anyway.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No quarrelling, guys, the dictionary I linked below lists four variants of the pronunciation of the name.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a classical studies scholar, but a good scholar nonetheless, Dale Martin at Yale, pronounces it for you: [5]. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Bugs' "Dare" for the first syllable only applies only to "Amairicans" with the merry-marry-Mary merger, not the civilized ones who do not rhyme marry and Mary. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're calling me uncivilized? That's rather uncivil of you. Here in the Midwest, if we were to wed that happy lady, we would marry merry Mary. We don't suffer from homophonophobia. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news for all the homophonosexuals out there. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 00:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the average Midwesterner typically assumes that the coasters are typically lunatics. If you think otherwise, watch Entertainment Tonight for a week or so. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same media that portrays "Snookie" as an Italian from New Jersey. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time this week, I've completely lost the plot of a thread. No matter. I have an ex-sister-in-law named Daria; I must start calling her /dəˈraɪə/ and wait for the explosion. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 10:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The merry-marry-Mary merger is very common on the U.S. west coast, not just the midwest. IPA for English conventions would be dæriəs, dɑriəs, dəraɪəs (though Wiktionary doesn't list the third). AnonMoos (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding stress marks' to AnonMoos' helpful transcription, that's 'dæriəs, 'dɑriəs, də'raɪəs. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is widely known that for native speakers of English, the hardest languages to learn are Arabic, Chinese, Korean and Japanese, while the easiest are French, Italian and Spanish. What are the easiest and hardest languages to learn for native speakers of Mandarin Chinese (excluding other Chinese dialects)? --119.74.174.1 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be widely known, but that doesn't make it true. Apart from the difficulty of finding an objective measure, I'm quite sure that there are hundreds of languages which are at least as difficult for English speakers to learn as the four you've mentioned, and on the other end, I would argue that German is as easy for English speakers as the three you've mentioned, and Danish and Swedish easier. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scripts of these languages are unfamiliar, and tone in Chinese is unfamiliar to Westerners. Otherwise these are pretty straightforward languages. If you want "hard" look at the Ubykh language or the Navajo language or one of the Salish languages. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest are the languages with analytical or isolated grammar structure and phonetically close to Chinese. But I can't recollect too many.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP excluded other Chinese dialects, but not other Sino-Tibetan languages. On the basis of no data whatsoever but my gut feeling, I suspect Burmese would be tolerably easy for Mandarin speakers to learn. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THai and Vietnamese which are uninflected and have tone may also be easy for Mandarin speakers compared to some Western languages, although they do have different orthographies. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Japanese. The kanji part of Japanese is perfectly comprehensible to a Chinese speaker, so learning to write should not be difficult. I don't know about pronunciation, as I've never learned Japanese. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In matter of writting what is the best proved prove way to do it. 1st person or 3rd. I'm not asking for personal opinions. References?Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 18:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one "best way" that applies to all writing. It very much depends on various factors. And that's my opinion. :) -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 18:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As with the question of the length of a story, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. Some great stories have been written in first person, some in third person. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The easier way for beginners? Oh, Jack I had to specify I wasn't asking for personal opinion. Sometimes I find useful writting in 1st person because it allows to not show some parts of the story and/or the thoughts of the rest of the characters, but sometimes 3rd person is the best option so I cannot decide between using one or the other. I have several chapters in 3 and several others in 1. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 18:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Bono, you may find it useful to do some research into Narrative mode. The Wikipedia article is a good introduction to the concept, which covers aspects of the narrative including first vs. third person, as well as variations such as "third person subjective" or "third person omniscient" or "unreliable narrator". --Jayron32 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only answer this with OR. First person has the benefit of immediacy and being more dramatic. But it has the disadvantage of drawing your attention always to the fact that someone is telling you a story. Third person is maybe more difficult to write without becoming boring. But it allows you much more easily to imagine the author's world is real, and for the reader to forget he is reading a story, and to immerse himself in it. First person also seems to be the older form, with novels like Gulliver's Travels (1700's) and Moby Dick (1800's) being written in it. Most authors nowadays write in third person unless they have a reason to do otherwise. Except, occassionally, for Robert Heinlein, none of my favorite authors wrote in first person. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting narrative mode is the "Framing story", something like Joseph Conrad uses, which is a variation on the "first person" narrative. The framing story usually involves the narrator telling the story to someone else rather than to the reader directly, which helps to depersonalize the story somewhat. The narrator uses "I" terms, but the framing story makes it clear that you, the reader is not who the narrator is directing his story to. In Heart of Darkness, for example, the framing story is that Marlow (the narrator) is telling the story to other passengers on a riverboat along the Thames, relating to them the tale. In the film The Usual Suspects, the narrator, Verbal Kint, is narrating the story in the first person to Agent Kujan, which provides the framing story for the rest of the film. This is different than first person works like the film Fight Club, in which the (unnamed) narrator is talking in the first person directly to the audience. Just some more variation to consider. --Jayron32 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same way as in the The Curious Case of Benjamin B.?
So, 3rd person is better? Also, can you write the prologue in 1st person and the rest in 3rd? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can do anything you want. If you can think of a narrative mode (that is, a way to tell a story), it's been done before. Writing the prologue in first person, and the rest in third, is a way to manage a Framing story, for example if the narrator is a disinterested observer and minimally involved in moving the story along, but is present for all of the important action. I'm pretty sure Moby Dick could be described as such. The narrator, Ishmael, is telling the story, but doesn't take place in the action except as an observer. So your story could be organized similarly. Heck, there are even other rather "out there" narrative modes, such as stream of consciousness, where all of the writing takes place inside the narrators head, or epistolary novels, where the entire plot is moved along in the form of letters (such as the original Dracula, or the young adult novel Dear Mr. Henshaw. There is no wrong or better way to do this. No narrative mode is inherently better, it's all about what feel you want from the story. If you can think of it, it has been done, and done in a well-known, well-received book, so really it comes down to what you're looking for in your story. --Jayron32 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can do anything you want -- there are no rules. Look at Tristram Shandy. But the more complicated you make things, the harder it is to get suspension of disbelief from your readers. Looie496 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad English is hitting me again; let me know if I got this right: if I keep it simple the story would be more credible? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 20:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayron that you should carefully read Narrative mode. One thing it mentions is that third person makes it much easier to have an omniscient (all-knowing) narrator:
An omniscient narrator has knowledge of all times, people, places, and events, including all characters' thoughts; a limited narrator, in contrast, may know absolutely everything about a single character and every piece of knowledge in that character's mind, but the narrator's knowledge is "limited" to that character — that is, the narrator cannot describe things unknown to the focal character.
Ominscience allows the author to strategically jump around between various characters' points of view, which when done well can really enhance the reader's experience. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you make things too complicated, the reader may just get too confused to care any more, or may stop believing that something so complicated could happen. But many successful authors do write extremely complicated plots. On the other hand, if you keep it too simple, it may not be interesting. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to learn to crawl before I learn to walk. This is my third novel I cannot make it too complicated. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, MB, that you can write the prologue in first person, and the rest in third. As mentioned, Moby Dick is like that. Name of the Rose is as well. The narrator can begin in explicit first person, then step back and tell the story in third person. The Hobbit as well, which is "written" by Bilbo, but as if he's telling a story in the third person. One bit of advice the novelist Ayn Rand gives in her Art of Nonfiction is to ignore such things as you are writing; just let everything flow. Then go back and clean things up after you edit the first draft. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As examples, Dickens used both methods. The writer is always an observer of the events, conveying them to the audience. It's a question of whether the writer wants to be ostensibly a part of the flow of the story, or merely outside looking in. The advantage of the latter approach, though, is that the writer can play "God" and look into the heads of the characters. If told in first person, that could be harder to do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly if the character dies mid-way through the novel. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 00:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must have no taste, as that's one of my all-time favourite movies. Holden never made a bad film, and neither did Billy Wilder. What a dynamite combination. See also Stalag 17. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 03:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's Picnic, in which he plays a 37 year old 21 year old. Prancing around with his shirt off he looks like an old shoe. Some great cinematography in the nighttime shots, though. And of course, Kim Novak!μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the theme song, "Moonglow". His two best roles, for my money, were in The Bridge on the River Kwai and Network. His little tirade directed at Jack Hawkins in Bridge always gets me: "You make me sick with your heroics! There's a stench of death about you. You carry it in your pack like the plague. Explosives and L-pills - they go well together, don't they? And with you it's just one thing or the other: destroy a bridge or destroy yourself. This is just a game, this war! You and Colonel Nicholson, you're two of a kind, crazy with courage. For what? How to die like a gentleman... how to die by the rules - when the only important thing is how to live like a human being". -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I own, but for some odd reason have not watched BotRQ. Network is great, and he is great in it. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I insist you MUST watch Kwai, now. The other great speech is from Sessue Hayakawa: " ..... I HATE the English! ....". And Alec Guinness, "genuine class" as always. Oscar-worthy, too. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Jack, I promise I will not watch another movie before I watch Kwai. Guinness is marvelous, and is my father's favorite actor. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, you just made me spit out my drink.
We sang the comet song in elementary school, with the sole change of "mouth turn green" instead of "teeth". Inspired by this I created "Our L'eggs eat your legs, they never let you go... They gobble up your toes...", (original), which I was forced to sing to every teacher in my elementary school after my homeroom teacher heard me singing it on the playground. Then came the Assburncream commercial narrated by Orson Welles and Julia Child we created as part of our group project when we put on ten-minute long radio plays. (I suppose that must date me that we were creating radio plays in school.) And of course the classic:
"My bologna has a first name, it's J-I-M-M-Y,
My bologna has a second name, it's C-A-R-T-E-R
ooooh, I love to hate him every daaay,
and if you ask me why, I'll saaay
'cuz Jimmy Carter has a way of messing up the U-S-A!)"
Welcome to the crazy world of English language idioms. :) A hot dog is literally that illustration, yes. The tune Medeis cites above is a parody of an Oscar Mayer TV advertisement. Oscar Mayer makes all kinds of processed meat products, including bologna and hot dogs (or "wieners", to be more formal about it). And the term "hot dog" is used in America at least, maybe elsewhere as well, to mean someone who's "hamming it up" or "showing off". So it was just a play on words which could certainly seem obscure to a non-native speaker. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs That's scary, I saw Medeis as a walking hot dog... I kinda had some bizarre situation at the bottom of this section, I apologize. Oh, and cannot follow the link. Sorry. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer! Well, it's a very young child singing the real song: "My bologna has a first name / It's O-S-C-A-R / My bologna has a second name / It's M-A-Y-E-R..." This one,[7] for the benefit of others here, is probably the most famous Oscar Mayer jingle, a group of cartoon kids singing, "Oh, I'd love to be an Oscar Mayer wiener / That is what I'd truly like to be / 'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener / Everyone would be in love with me..." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Spacey narrates the ending of American Beauty (film) despite having been killed off near the end. Maybe those were his final thoughts as he drifted into oblivion. That approach wouldn't work so well for Janet Leigh in Psycho. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pa que sepas, "It is so hard!" quiere decir "¡Qué parada está!" en ingles. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG! I am so so so so so sorry! That's not what I meant to say. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 14:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's not rude, just funny. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well :μηδείς, for me it was like being disrespectful to all males here! I feel so ashamed... Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a double entendre. And it's only funny if you say "it's so hard". "Learning English is so hard" would not be funny. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I will say "Learning English is so hard". Please accept my apologize! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 16:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
