Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 November 14

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.

November 14

How can i view Facebook page in English?

I can't read oriental. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.71.124 (talk • contribs)

According to geolocate, the user seems to be stranded in Connecticut. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

On the blue title bar, far right hand side there is a down pointing triangle. Click on that. Click on the 4th item from the bottom. This should take you to General Account Settings. Now click on the blue word (which is Edit in English) at the far right hand end of the second item from the bottom. You will get a drop down box appear: if you use that to alter the language to English (US) you will have succeeded. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What's better?

Peeps, can I type this cm3 (cc [cubic centimetres]) in a sentence or cm3 means cc (cubic centimetres) and I can’t. What looks professional, hot and sexy? cm3 or cc (cubic centimetres)?

(Russell.mo (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC))

"cc" is well understood by the older generation and in many disciplines, but use a superscript: cm³ for standard modern usage. You can also use "ml" in some contexts. I've no idea what you should use to make the unit look hot or sexy. Dbfirs 15:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

-- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC))

Russell's back. Where have ya been? As usual you don't give a sentence, even though you've been asked to several times. Why do you do this? Seriously, it's easier to answer if you give some context. This said, I think in most instances you can't go wrong with «cm³» but in some cases «cc» may be acceptable or even the preferred option, i.e. I wonder if in some contexts «cm³» may not seem pedantic, especially if it is read aloud ("cubic centimeters"). The abbreviation «cc» will most often be read as "seesee" (in both singular and plural) which sounds more informal. It depends how you wanna come across. For example if you're talking bikes use «cc» or you'll come across as a wuss. ("My Kawasaki Ninja H2R, 1000 cubic centimeters of raw power". Doesn't work.) Contact Basemetal here 16:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! Next time I’ll. I’ve been busy with my tough life, teaching it how tough I am… Hope you are well. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC))

"cm3" without the proper superscript will almost always look bad. Even "cm^3" would be preferable in situations where you can't do proper typesetting. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Point noted. It’s been 15 days and I’m already running low on Mbs. I wanted to relax, I ended up getting busy with adult sites, otherwise I would’ve wrote it appropriately. My price plan is kinda ‘pay bite as you go’… Thanks for the point (good to know), I only use '^' to mean the 'Ctrl' button. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC))

"C.C." should only be used for doses of poison. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hope you are good too -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC))

Thanks guys. I guess I'll use superscript: cm³. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC))

Resolved

Is there any term / word that describes people who like learn medicine?

I mean something like geek... but for medicine. 194.114.146.227 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Biogeek" gets lots of hits on google... though that is more general than just medicine, it would seem to be more specific than just geek. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty common to just stick "geek" after whichever topic. Pirate geek, stats geek, medicine geek. If you think that's condescending, it also works for the -phile suffix. Pharmacophile seems about right. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Afficianado? Lover (though that one might get misconstrued)? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Have or has in front of proper nouns (British English)

Is it correct to use have or has in front of proper nouns, in the following sentence, in British English.

Manchester City Council have laid out plans to improve roads.

Or

Manchester City Council has laid out plans to improve roads.

Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.54 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 November 2014

Such verb agreement (which can apply to all verbs) doesn't have much to do with "proper nouns", but with collective nouns, whose semantic referents contain multiple individual members, such as "band" (of musicians), "team", "family", "group", etc. This has been much discussed as a difference between British and American English, but the difference is actually a rather minor one, since both British and American have verbs showing "semantic agreement" and verbs showing strict grammatical agreement in various contexts. They just happen to differ in this particular context (grammatically singular collective noun with semantic referent of a multi-member set). AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Have" is used with a plural subject, and "has" when it's singular. As AnonMoos says, collective nouns complicate things, but I would treat "Manchester City Council" as a single entity, and use "has". Rojomoke (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"

The above answers have it, here are some references Collective_noun#Metonymic_merging_of_grammatical_number, and some discussions from Oxford dictionaries. [1] [2]. As I understand it, in AmEng, the second form is more common, an in BrEng, either can be used, but the first may be more common. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Context is going to matter. If you say "They were split 7 to 5, but the city council have laid out plans..." that's not going to bother an American, while "The Manchester city council has already laid out its plans while the Newark city council hasn't" places the councils in the context of single contrasting entities, not groups of people. )In america.) If it's a formal paper your are writing, ask your professor or editor what manual of style to use. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sticking to your examples: both are acceptable in British English, and have very slightly different force (though in most contexts the difference can be ignored). With "have" you are referring to the Council as a group of people, with "has" as a single entity. --ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I always treat companies, groups and the like as collective singulars, and (as such) use "has" with them. The only time I would use "have" is if I were specifically trying to emphasise that many people make up the company. The latter usage is still rare on my part, however. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)