Language desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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 6[edit]

Euphemism ?[edit]

I'm not sure if that's the best word. I'm looking for the use of "revenue enhancement" in place of "tax" or "procedure" in place of "surgery" or "person of interest" instead of "suspect". All of these have an element of deception about them. (Yes, there are some revenue enhancements which are not just taxes in disguise, some procedures which aren't really surgeries, and some people of interest who aren't actually suspects, just as some people who "go to the bathroom to wash up" really do take a bath there.) So, is there a better word for that ? Does doublespeak better fit those cases ? StuRat (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think both words work fine. They both mean roughly "a word substitution"; a euphemism is used for decorum, while doublespeak is used for obfuscation; and your examples included some of both. For example, "bathroom" for "room where the commode is located" is a euphemism, but "revenue enhancement" for "tax" is doublespeak. --Jayron32 14:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK a 'bathroom' is a room with a bath in it. It often has a loo in it as well.--ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern (less than 30 years old) bathrooms generally have the loo separate if there is enough space. A room with a shower but no bathtub is still called a bathroom. Roger (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron on both points. "Revenue enhancement" is a deliberately cloudy idea that might cover anything from raising taxes to eliminating them, depending on context. Like so many jargon terms that we hear all too frequently from politicians, bizpeeps, journalists, etc., at bottom it's essentially dishonest obfuscation, when what they mean in plain English is "raising money," a much more clear and honest phrase. For more examples, see this amusing interview from the BBC. Textorus (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of the full word, but it ends in "... locution" - I think that's the one. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circumlocution? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

english usage[edit]

Is there a usage in english like 'to have taken', 'to have been associated' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.201.139.203 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "He is thought to have taken the jewels, but not to have been associated with the family". Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or "He was thought to have been associated with a criminal gang, but police determined that he was not." It's simply the present perfect tense of the passive voice of the verb "to associate" - which, although grammatically correct, makes rather an awkward phrase, better replaced with a simpler construction, e.g.: "The police thought he was associated with a gang, but . . . ." or even better, "The police thought he was a gang member." Textorus (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i concur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some unnecessary and redundant not to mention superfluous overpassivisation going on there, Tex.

"He was thought to have been associated with a criminal gang" would be followed by "but police determined that he had not been".
"He was thought to be associated with a criminal gang" would be followed by "but police determined that he was not". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

URDU TRANSLATION -ARUN S BAGH[edit]

File:C:\Documents and Settings\Ankit\Desktop\061120111383.jpg CAN ANYONE PLEASE TRANSLATE THIS DOCUMENT IN ENGLISH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbrainy (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That document is on your own computer's hard drive, and no one else but you can see it. AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comma usage in "the intervention of the queen dowager Eleanor of Aquitaine and King Richard"[edit]

"The intervention of the queen dowager Eleanor of Aquitaine and King Richard" or "the intervention of the queen dowager, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and King Richard"? Which is correct? If both are, which is preferred? Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either is fine. Which is preferred depends on the language used - BritEng usually prefers fewer commas than AmEng. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reconsidering, the phrasing with commas is a bit ambiguous, so probably no commas would be preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an "appositional comma", an issue concerning which it may not always be possible to make a quick and easy decision... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably write the sentence without the commas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This construction is going to be hard for readers either way. Better would be "the intervention of King Richard and the queen dowager, Eleanor of Aquitaine". If for some reason it is essential to keep the order, then say "and of King Richard", which is ugly but at least makes it easier to parse. Looie496 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Looie's improved ordering of the sentence, a much easier read. In the original, notice that with no commas, a reader could take it to mean that 3 people are being referred to; commas are needed to make clear that queen dowager = Eleanor. "Eleanor of Aquitaine" is functioning there as an appositive, which is a frequently used type of nonrestrictive modifier: see this short explanation or this podcast video for explanations/examples.

The concept is easier to see by starting with only two items. Consider this: "I got an email from my sister who lives in Paris." In that universe, I have at least two, maybe more sisters; the one currently living it up in the City of Light is the one who wrote to me. But - "I got an email from my sister, who lives in Paris." In this universe, I have only one sister, who happens at this time to be staying in the capital of France. Same words in both sentences - but a single comma changes the meaning drastically, you see?

A modern version of your 3-item sentence: "I bought lunch for the project manager my sister Alice and David." How many people were at the table? You can't know for sure, even with the appropriate commas. At best, if I sprang for only two burgers, for absolute clarity it would need to be something ". . . the project manager, my sister Alice, as well as for David." Better, though, to put David - or Richard - first in a sentence like this. Textorus (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the original, I would argue that the commas suggest three people more than the no-commas version. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I would not use the commas. It looks fine without them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sfogliattele[edit]

Can someone please tell me how to pronounce Sfogliatelle. I do not understand IPA, so please give me the sounded out version for an American. I know it's not truly accurate but it's the best I can understand.--108.46.103.88 (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat Anglicized pronunciation would be sfawl-yah-TEHL-lay. Deor (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See and hear http://www.forvo.com/search/sfogliatelle/.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source gives Italian and American versions: "Sfogliatelle (pronounced shfoo-yuh-DELL on The Sopranos and sfoh-yuh-TELL-eh in an online dictionary) is a magnificent treat for all the senses." How correct that is, I have no idea. Textorus (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct pronounciation is: sfoh-yuh-TELL-eh, shfoo-yuh-DELL is neapolitan pronounciation. --Kaspo (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. That helps a great deal. The Sopranos' pronunciation makes a lot of sense because those from Sicily (or at least those in America with Sicilian roots in the New York/New Jersey area) often drop the vowel ending of words, à la proscuitto is pronounced prahjute. I wanted to know because I had one the other day and It was one of the most delicious things I've ever tasted.--108.46.103.88 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get the foreign pronunciation right, I can help with approximation of foreign sounds. The IPA transcription is [sfɔʎʎaˈtɛllɛ]. You can probably understand the s and f. The next sound is ɔ, which is the u in bus pronounced with your lips rounded like you're whistling. ʎ is the most difficult sound. Say y (as in yes) and then raise your tongue so that its centre touches the roof of your mouth but not its sides. a should be familiar to you; it's the first sound of the word I (transcribed [aɪ]). t is pronounced as usual. ɛ is pronounced like the e in best. The Italian l here is a bit different from the English l; touch only the tip of your tongue to the roof of your mouth. For a more in-depth look and sound samples, the articles on the foreign sounds are respectively open-mid back rounded vowel, palatal lateral approximant, and alveolar lateral approximant. I hope this starts you on your way to mastering Italian pronunciation! Inter change able|talk to me 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user appears to be from the NYC area, they may have [ɔ] in their dialect anyway (in words like caught or law), depending on how heavy their NY accent is (if it's heavy, they probably don't). For the gl pronunciation, it should sound similar to the "lli" in million, but "slurred together" more. --Miskwito (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Various of"[edit]

Recently, I was reading a book that mentioned a certain pastor who had given numerous sermons, "various of which he has posted on his website". Various used in this context doesn't seem correct to me - any thoughts by anyone else? Inter change able|talk to me 22:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's correct either but I see it somewhat frequently. I'm not sure what more can be said. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds stilted but correct to me. It's an adjective being used as a pronoun. The same can be done with "some" or "many", which sound fine in the same context. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I think the issue revolves around whether various is being an adjective or a quantifier. In the examples you cite, these are quantifiers (some of them, many of them, all of them, several of them, etc., all are partitive quantifiers). Actual adjectives, even ones similar in meaning to various (e.g., "diverse", "assorted"), can't be used in this way (*assorted of them). To me the difference sounds even worse then what comes after of is a full noun (e.g., *assorted of the people [in the room], *various of the people, etc., sound very bad, whereas some of the people, all of the people are fine). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster says it's fine: various (pronoun): "an indefinite number of separate individuals greater than one have read various of her essays" [1] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]