October 25

I started The_Chinese_Novel_at_the_Turn_of_the_Century#Content, about an academic book discussing late Qing Dynasty literature. Would anyone mind checking to see if the names in Wade-Giles can be deciphered into Chinese characters?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are well-known works, so it wasn't hard to guess at the titles and find corresponding articles on the Chinese Wikipedia. A less ignorant Chinese person would know these by heart, but I got these by brute force:

Erh-shih nien mu-tu chih kuai hsien-chuang： 二十年目睹之怪现状, by 吴沃尧 (Wu Jianren)

Kuan-ch'ang hsien-hsing chi: 官场现形记, by 李宝嘉

Chiu-ming ch'i-yüan: 九命奇冤, by Wu Jianren aka. Wu Woyao

Nieh-hai hua: 孽海花 by 曾朴 --Bowlhover (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! A lot of these don't even have English Wikipedia articles, so I am wikilinking to English and Chinese. It started as me writing an article about a book from 1980 using journal article book reviews, but it's leading me in many directions. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title should specify which century's turn it is. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the Actual title of the book which is the subject of the article. In Wikipedia it is effectivly a quote, and so should not be changed. DES ^(talk) 13:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A post at the Help Desk[1] requested help in finding sourcing to establish that the name for the town of Bulembu originated with the Bulembu clan of people, who are born with certain gifts that are passed down from parents to children where "bulembu" is the gift. I cross posted this request at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Humanities. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How it is called when various situations are best fitted with different English synonyms? For example "assassination" when it comes to government officials, but "murder" and "killing" in other contexts, or "liquid" in chemical context and "fluid" in biological context.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-relevant nit-pick: all liquid are fluids, but not all fluids are liquids. There is a scientific difference (gasses and plasmas are fluids too), not just a language usage thing. Fgf10 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, jargon?
Sleigh (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical terminology may be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• See
  infixing or consonant mutation. English culture has for a long time been based on entrepreneurialship, trade, and colonialism. England was invaded and ruled by French speakers, while remaining Anglo-Saxon. Latin and Greek were brought by the Church and the renaissance. So English usually has at least two, if not four or five very near synonyms for any idea, and subtle variants of meaning and connotation. Consider the aforementioned assassin. Spanish has two normal words for killer: asesino and matador, with one emphasizing the moral aspect, the other the physical act. English has the native murderer and killer with these two sense, as well as both words from Spanish, used in narrower senses, as well as homicide and slayer and a whole bunch of narrower terms like executioner and hitman and so forth. English is simply the superior world language. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You can't borrow properly many or most of the words from Czech, Vietnamese or, say, Salish without greatly corrupting them. You've borrowed 60% of your vocabulary from French and Latin just because they were much better, elegant, developed languages than that barbaric rough Anglo-Saxon, which wasn't spoken but by the rough common people of a wild island at the edge of Europe. But I agree, despite all these, many native English-speakers are simply the superior people in the world in regard to their silly superiority complex, no-one can compete with them in this.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think it was necessary to say "relatively accommodating phonology"; that's understood. I'm not sure what you think is so problematic about Czech. And we'd lose the tone from Vietnamese, but we'd also aspirate everybody's unaspirated stops. And no need to go to Salish when you have zdravstvuyte. Nevertheless, my point stands, English is very accommodating to loans compared to many other languages, for the reasons given. As for the superiority of English speakers, that's your bugaboo. I made no such comment. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • English is simply the superior world language. No, it's not. It just happened that English has borrowed a half of its vocabulary from French and Latin some centuries ago, and hence it has the situation where there are many Anglo-Germanic vs. Latino-Romance doublets, and the fact this situation cannot exist in French, German, Irish, and dozens and dozens of world languages does not mean they are less superior. Linguistically speaking no natural language can be the superior than other. Yes, a language might be more developed in some respects than others (say, the language of an Amazon tribe is highly underdeveloped in speaking of modern science, but it can be highly developed in respect of describing any subtle thing of the jungle life). Or it might be simpler or more complex in its phonetics, grammar, morphology etc. And assuming that a language is the superior in the entire world (and this language is your native, what a coincidence!) is a sign of some linguo-national complex ("ours is the best"). English is not the best in any sense, quite the contrary it's the curse for the planet that such a tangled nearly chaotic language as English has become the ultimate world language.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lyuboslov, you've taken a throw away line and made an issue of it. But it is still true, and it has nothing to do with what my native language is. First, you can't say English doesn't "deserve" credit because it borrowed so much historically. That it borrowed so much is the very point being made, not whether languages get moral praise for borrowing. No did I say English was the most beautiful or pleasing to God of languages. I said it has the largest vocabulary, and in addition to being the language of commerce, science, and international communication, it has the largest literature in the world, and almost twice as many books printed in it than Spanish, the next runner up. Those are facts. This is no aspersion on Russian (which I love) or any other language. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has nothing to do with the language itself, but with the state in which the language is used. It's the country which became the world's hegemon and this is why its language so enormous in numerical value (the great numbers of its words, of its dictionaries, of printed books, of web-sites etc.). The country is the most developed, hence its language shows great numbers. It just happened to be English, and it just happened that borrowings make up a half of its vocabulary, that's all. If it were Dutch or even Icelandic then we now can be heard about how "clear and pure" the language, how it can get along without borrowings etc. And I don't care much about the reputation of Russian, it is where it is, this wasn't my concern. I provided the example below just because I know the situation about Russian better.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can agree with that pretty much entirely. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • English has become the business language of the world. That doesn't mean that the native speakers of English are superior. It means that English is extraordinarily rich, as it has no qualms about borrowing words from any language it chooses to. And of course, as you suggest, butchering the pronunciation and strict grammar rules of its source. English is highly democratic, which of course means it's a hodge-podge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can reassure you that Russian has borrowed many thousands of words just for the last 20 years, and every day there are coined more and more slang words. Russian are free to all, it has not any obstacles in taking loanwords. It is just conservative Russian lexicography that are prescriptive and not descriptive, and does not collect all these words into the dictionaries. And if you know only standard Russian "of the dictionaries" you cannot understand a half of RuNet discussions. Even I every day encounter freshly-coined slang words which I have not seen before. And this is just about the language of a backward people at the far north edge of the Earth, what can be said about all others.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term is collocation. IBE (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd better correct that before someone else chimes in. It seems the definition of collocation is slightly more restricted, but it is fairly close to what you are talking about. I think the only exact way to describe the thing you are talking about is to refer to the importance of context. IBE (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English has borrowed a lot of words, true, but that is not because it is "phonologically accommodating". To take up the Japanese example, the Japanese may alter English words when they borrow them, but that hardly stops them borrowing, does it? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phonemes /z/, /v/, /ʒ/ (zh), and, to an extent, arguably, /ð/ owe their existence to the voicing contrast adopted from French as distinctive, instead of allophonic. (There's also the mute/moot distinction.) Japanese may someday do the same. Our vocabulary also remains etymologically transparent in many cases, although some would argue that's a drawback so far as orthography. The French origin of hors d'oeuvre remains in English, while beisbol and besuboru lose their patrimony. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any difference in connotation whether you use behind or after for an inferior position in a ranking? "The Fin whale is the second largest animal in the world after/behind the Blue Whale?" --KnightMove (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, behind implies physical location, so sounds odd in this usage. --Jayron32 13:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "behind the blue whale" doesn't sound right. Yet we say "The team has fallen behind the other team in the rankings", even though physical location is not implied. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a non-native speaker of English, but for me sounds odd to say behind the Blue Whale, by that I understand that the Fin whale is swimming right behind the Blue Whale. Oh, and sorry for pocking my nose here.

^{[hello, hello!]} 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Pocking of the nose could indicate

chicken pox. Oops, we better remove this medical advice ! :-) StuRat (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [reply

]

Awww, poking, I meant poking. Thanks StuRat. Is this like the it's so hard thing that Medeis pointed out the other day?

^{[hello, hello!]} 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ironically, pox has no risqué meaning. But "to poke" can mean meter. Almost any word in English can have a double meaning having to do with sex. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meter en Español o en Inglés? Lo que quise decir fue, perdón por meterme donde no me llaman.

^{[hello, hello!]} 18:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

What you said in English was perfectly said and not at all rude. But "to poke" can have a rude double meaning depending on context. (The verb meter is used this way too, in at least Mexican Spanish.) It wouldn't really be worth mentioning, except that you asked. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were talking about the English word meter, but now I know that you meant meter in Spanish. Oh, and FYI in Cuban Spanish that word has the same meaning as in Mexican Spanish.

^{[hello, hello!]} 19:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I read it as "the best". StuRat (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, it says You are the best guy ever?

^{[hello, hello!]} 15:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, maybe not ever, but the best guy she knows, perhaps. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

^{[hello, hello!]} 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Among other definitions, Wiktionary gives "Being the greatest possible; maximum; most extreme" (emphasis added). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the old Cole Porter song, "You're the Top", a song I never cared for, but it might give you some ideas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably add that while being "the ultimate" is good when used alone, it can easily be turned negative, as in "you're the ultimate jerk". StuRat (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an offline equivalent of an online troll, or is the online troll solely an Internet concept? 140.254.227.67 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the offline equivalent of an online troll just be a troll? There are many different kinds of troll. See, for example, Copyright troll, Patent troll, and Trademark troll.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply a troll

prank callers. And of course, I am sure Phyllis Diller would have had some sort of self-deprecating answer to this. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Out dab page defines an Internet troll as "a person who, through willful action, attempts to disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages". If we remove the "through provocative messages" part and apply this definition to real life, the person we've described is simply an asshole.

talk) 18:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

But online trolling can be both intentional and unintentional. The effects are the same. What is a person who disrupts a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages - be they behavioral or verbal - unintentionally in RL? 140.254.226.232 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless. In older parlence a "bore." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "boor" perhaps but a "bore"? Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. You are correct, sorry. Struck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about troublemaker (or more colloquially shit stirrer])? Deor (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]