Language desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30[edit]

Colon usage when introducing a series of items.[edit]

My understanding has always been that an independent clause needs to precede a colon being used to introduce a series of items. For example, the use of the colon in "I went to the store to buy: apples, milk and cheese." is grammatically incorrect while the use of the colon in "I went to the store to buy the following things: apples, milk and cheese." is grammatically correct. I was always taught that the same "rule" also applies when what comes after the colon is a bulleted list of items. So, I am curious as to whether the colon usage in "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" from WP:TPO is grammatically correct.

FWIW, I asked about this at WT:TPG#WP:TPO wording because I wasn't sure, but so far I have not gotten any responses at all. Is there something obvious I'm missing here? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's informal, but I wouldn't call it wrong; consider it an elliptical form of "Here are some examples:". (The analogy with your apples example is tenuous.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language identification[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02l52fy/caribbean-with-simon-reeve-episode-2

Unfortunately this may not be available outside the UK, so hopefully someone either in the UK or who can spoof their location will be able to answer. At the end of the film, there is some dialogue with some Kogi people, e.g. at 51:00, 52:17, 56:30. Can anyone confirm whether they are speaking Spanish or their native language (or some mixture)? If it is all Spanish, is this just for the benefit of the film crew (or the translators accompanying the film crew)? The Wikipedia article does not mention that this tribe speak Spanish. 109.152.147.255 (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, they live in Colombia and grow sugar and coffee for trade. It is a fair assumption that at least some Kogi speak Spanish in order to carry out trade in these commodities. Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Kogi language it says "the Kogi people are almost entirely monolingual". Of course, this doesn't exclude the possibility that a few of them can speak some Spanish, and no doubt some can, but in the film it seems as if they are speaking "naturally", as far as one can tell. 109.152.147.255 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speaker is definitely speaking Kogi, [at first] not Spanish. The video is available on other websites. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I watched some of the video, and while my Spanish is rather limited, I can confidently say that the language spoken from 51:00 is not Spanish. On the other hand one can clearly hear e.g. from 53:15 "la miel de caña" and "bueno", which is definitely Spanish. It seems to me that at least one of the Kogi people who is interviewed knows Spanish, but others do not. - Lindert (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have watched the whole video, and have appended my first statement. From the part where the native guide comments on the height of the host, to pointing out the ripe lime and describing the drink he speaks some fluent Spanish. One of the men at the beach when asked about industrial development says in Spanish that when you cut your foot it damages your whole body. All other speech is in Kogi. The elder woman at the village is quoted as saying "for the profit of multinational corporations" but she uses no Spanish, and Kogi will not have these concepts unless they have been introduced from and been borrowed from Spanish, so we can safely call bullhsit on that part of the clip--someone is editorializing for her. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report writing[edit]

When writing a report, are all of these wordings correct?

This report has found that apples grow on trees.
This report found that apples grow on trees.
The report has found that apples grow on trees.
The report found that apples grow on trees.

I believe all 4 are correct but just wanted to check. Obviously the apple growing on trees is just an example. 94.14.220.88 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're all fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that each of these might appear within the report to which it refers, then the preterite examples (the second and fourth) sound very strange to me. If OTOH it refers to a different report, then either tense is OK; though in practice the perfect version ("has found") is less likely than the plain present ("finds"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using "report" as the subject of the sentence, in all the examples, looks a bit odd to me, as the report hasn't found anything. Depending on the level of formality required I would suggest something like "The/This study has found...", or "We/I have found...". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Need for Translation on Chop Marks & Characters[edit]

http://i.imgur.com/Va7kYgy.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevotedHistoryFan (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second black character is (of course) 山, and the third is 寫. Googling the string 山寫 brings hits for 畫山寫; among these, 畫 cries out for simplification and perhaps what we're looking at is a simplified form (no longer standard, if it ever was) of the character. (But you'd better get an answer from somebody who, unlike me, is familiar with Chinese.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smart versus dumb quotes[edit]

Not sure I put a subject line in my earlier send. Here is my query again.

Before beginning, a word on my authority: I have served as writer and editor with the China Post, the Washington Post, the National Geographic Society, the World Bank, and the U.S. Department of State. I am intimately familiar with all their style manuals as well as others such as Chicago and Words Into Type. All reflect my following observations.

Now, why in God’s name does Wikipedia not adopt smart quotes and apostrophes? Dumb quotes are ugly and are a throwback to the Smith Corona type-a-writer age. You say there are technical problems with using smart quotes? Surely, in the second decade of the 21st century, progamming whiz kids can instantly find a way around them. You know, if we can put a man on the moon . . .

And while we are on the subject of quotation marks, why adopt the British system of sometimes this: ,” and more often this: ”,? I know, I know, it is called logical, but logical or not, that system APPEARS to be chaotic, undisciplined, higgledy-piggledy. Moreover, it requires wasted editors’ minutes trying to figure out whether the quotation marks are part of the . . . oh, never mind. The Wikipedia founder is an American. As such, he should be privileged to require American style: all periods and commas to go INSIDE of quotation marks, all colons and semicolons OUTSIDE.

And while we are at it, consider this quotation from the Wikipedia Manual of Style and see my objections below: “George Orwell’s well-known essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, condemned the hypocrisy endemic in political writing and speech. – The commas are not part of the title and are therefore outside the quotation marks.”

In the Wikipedia example above, the commas are wholly out of place. The essay name is restrictive—not one of a kind but one of many. Orwell wrote many “well-known essays,” not just one, as the commas indicate. Find a different example, or if factual, substitute the absolute “best-known” for “well-known.” Then the commas will be unexceptionable: “George Orwell’s best-known essay, ‘Politics and the English Language,’ condemned. . . .”

I have noticed many such gaffes in what should be a pristine Wikipedia style manual.

And while we are at it, in the same example, why does Wikipedia allow a spaced en dash to serve in place of the correct unspaced em dash? The functions of the two dashes are totally unrelated, and Wikipedia overseers should know better. Yes, the Brits love “writing and speech. – The commas,” but the selection should look like this: writing and speech.—The commas. Or, even better, the entire sentence should be restructured for clarity.

Enough for now. More later, perhaps.

[Personal information redacted per guidelines]

Sloopcaptain (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments on the commas in the Orwell example. You are free to change the example yourself. (This is, after all, Wikipedia and not for example Britannica.) When you argue for a change, though, please don't talk up your authority: anybody can do this, which is why few people here do, and even fewer take seriously others' claims, however truthful they may be.

I understand that the "British"/"logical" system of punctuation happens not to appeal to you. The "American"/ "elegant" system happens not to appeal to me. Shall we argue about this? If we do, then let's not do so here: this is the reference desk.

Your concrete proposals (e.g. for automating the correct conversion of dumb quotation marks and apostrophes to "smart" ones) should perhaps go here, but do please first check this list of "perennial proposals".

If you go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, you can write up your opinions on dashes and thereby generate lengthy discussions with enthusiasts, connoisseurs and partisans of dashes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion about why Wikipedia does anything is clearly out of place on this page, and any proposal for change should be presented at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation mark thing appears to be something to do with the editing interface. When I copy and paste text with smart quotes into the editing window, the text looks “like this” in the editing window. However, when I save it, the quotation marks go back to being dumb quotes again, “like this”. Wouldn't have a clue why (and here's my usual disclaimer about these sort of things.) --Shirt58 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those still appear to be smart quotation marks, to me. Do you mean dumb quotes, "like this" ?

Personally I think all of this silliness about which way the quotation marks point and the length of each dash wastes effort that should be spent focusing on content, not style. My keyboard doesn't have multiple different-lengthed dashes, and I don't care to waste my time determining which length dash is appropriate for every situation and then figure out how to make it. The more barriers to editing like this you erect, the fewer editors you will have, and the less current Wikipedia will remain. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good style gives authority to the content. Also, I'm not aware that otherwise valid contributions are ever deleted or rejected on style grounds. Instead, what happens (or should happen) is that other editors polish up the style where necessary. 86.155.201.128 (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which they do. That's why I never obsessed over such trivia, as there are other editors and bot program which will take care of that stuff that the average viewer couldn't care less about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Good style gives authority to the content": I couldn't disagree more. We should teach ourselves not to be misled that sleek communications somehow make their claims any more valid. Otherwise we end up with very impressive looking, and very wrong, articles. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that all professional publications care about style? Like it or not, poor style lowers the value that readers (educated readers, at least) give to the content, and good style elevates it. A poorly written article is likely to be disregarded even if factually accurate. Some style points are too fussy or debatable to care about, but, in general, good writing style is extremely important. 86.155.201.128 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is amateur, not professional, and style is overrated anyway. Proper English usage matters. Dashes vs. hyphens do not. Straight quotes vs. curvy quotes do not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes versus hyphens very definitely do matter. You are quite wrong about that one. 86.155.201.128 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that it matters to those who think it matters. Now, given the statement "It's are city - help keep it clean," what jumps out at you? The hyphen instead of the dash? Or the gross misuse of "are"? If it's the hyphen, your eddycation took a wrong turn somewhere. To show how important this is(n't) to the general public, note how the citizenry of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which uses a hyphen instead of a dash, presumably because it's just one city, as opposed to Minneapolis–St. Paul, nonetheless call their city and their baseball team "The Dash." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you did a poll of the general public asking if they cared about the relative uses of the various dashes, hyphens, etc., I suspect you'd get single digits who would even know which one is correct, much less care about it. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line issue, Sloopcaptain, is compatibility between languages, browsers, and word processors. Wikipedia tends to favor simplicity and the retention of older formats available to more users worldwide. At some point the use of smart quotes by MS Word caused compatibility problems when transferred between formats; this is likely the original reason why they are not used here.

Asking about this as a brief question (rather than a long letter of complaint) at the computing desk might get a more specific answer about the MS Word compatibility issue, I did a cursory search, but didn't ind much. As has been made clear above, this is not the proper forum itself for making suggestions for changes. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Now, why in God’s name does Wikipedia not adopt smart quotes and apostrophes?": this is directly addressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes. See also Medeis's comment above.
In response to "The Wikipedia founder is an American. As such, he should be privileged to require American style"; well, he didn't. Any major national style of English is welcome, though any particular article should use a single style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and the links from there.
This decision is also the reason the policy on dashes. Many British publishers prefer the spaced en dash to the em dash.

--65.95.176.148 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wikipedia founder is an American. As such, he should be privileged to require American style: all periods and commas to go INSIDE of quotation marks, all colons and semicolons OUTSIDE." Wow, talk about completely missing the point of this whole project! Also, you should really appreciate that things are done differently from the US in the rest of the worlds, and that American exceptionalism is an ugly idea in any context, even grammar. Open you mind and join the rest of the world! Also, your rather blatant appeal to authority by posting your CV in your question will rather sour people on any point you are trying to make, and only show you haven't thought through your question, as the quoted publications/organisations are limited to American language usage. Now, as for the other comments that style doesn't matter, this if of course nonsense, as good as information may be, if it's presented sloppily, the perception of it will suffer, and rightly so. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bite much? Sounds like an American popped your sheep, 82. Perhaps you can get one made in China, instead. Although ours are exceptional, of course. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the information about the original poster's professional experience is relevant: people who edit for periodicals have the concept ingrained that content edited to a single style, to the point that anyone other style is deemed wrong, is better than the same content not so edited. That's basic to what they do. So don't dump on the fellow because he said that; consider it an explanation for why he has a different mind-set than you do. (Personal opinion as a reader: he's right. The policy of allowing different styles is one of the things that detract from Wikipedia. However, that policy is a practical necessity given the desire to attract as many contributors as possible.) --65.95.176.148 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has it exactly right. He is an American who has moved to London. On his talk page, if the OP uses British spelling he uses British spelling, and if the OP uses American spelling he uses American spelling. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]