Language desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

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.

October 19[edit]

Japanese language question[edit]

How do you know whether to use a kanji character's On or Kun reading, in general in a section of written Japanese? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Kanji#Readings. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese alphanumeric codes[edit]

In countries that use the Latin alphabet, alphanumeric codes such as ABC123 are used for various purposes (e.g. product codes or other identification codes). In Japan, is there any analogous system using any of the native Japanese characters (e.g. あいう123)? Or do the Japanese use the Latin alphabet for this purpose? Or is there no equivalent in Japan to Western-style alphanumeric codes? 86.135.26.143 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

My Google image search for japanese licence plates found images of licence plates with characters from one or more of the following character sets: kanji, hiragana, Roman letters, and Hindu-Arabic numerals, all four sets being represented.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin letters and Arabic numerals are very common, but 〇一二三四五六七八九 or 零壱弐参肆伍陸漆捌玖 are sometimes used as digits instead of 0123456789, and いろは… or あいう… or their katakana equivalents are sometimes used in place of ABC... (For example, the notes called ABCDEFG in English are イロハニホヘト in Japanese.) -- BenRG (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Japanese addressing system and Postal Information for Japan. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Equation corresponds to the Japanese article ja:方程式, and

the article Chemical formula corresponds to the Japanese article ja:化学式.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the Nihon Keizai Shimbun at http://www.nikkei.com/. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid -- the young of the goat and the young of the human, are they related somehow?[edit]

(Moved from Humanities desk - -- the Great Gavini 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Does this word have the same origin to both meanings? I am very much curious about this. I would appreciate a very clear note on this from anyone of you. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.223.19 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they are related - both probably to chit - but it's not very surprising that a word denoting a young animal would also come to be used of people. -- the Great Gavini 04:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "related"; they are the same word in different contexts. It would be more correct to say that "kid" is used of a child by extension. In that context it is slang (according to the OED), in the same way that some people might refer to a young woman as a kitten.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Shantavira said. The goat sense came first, and the usage as applied to humans was an extension. They are the same word, etymologically - from Middle English kide. Lexicografía (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" They are not "related"[...]" - actually, they would be related if they are the same word. I could understand if you wrote "not just related", but what you've written is just nitpicking for the sake of it. -- the Great Gavini 04:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon exists also in other languages (e.g. Middle Aramaic, in the phrase: kad hawina talya, i.e.: "when I was a kid"). Note also that a few personal names (e.g. Rachel) derived from the Bible, mean "ewe". Eliko (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young people can still today be called a "young pup" or "my lamb"; girls are called "chicks", etc. Pais (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Chicks" comes from "chickens"; Chico Marx (whose name was originally spelled Chick-o) was what his brother characterized as a "chicken chaser". Regarding "kid", Entymology Online says "kid" for human child is several hundred years old and indeed was from the word originally used for the young of goats: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for Pete's sake, stop complicating things everyone. The use of the slang "kid" for child is self-evidently related to the young of farm animals. It would have begun as a kind of jocular way for farm people to talk, and then became automatic. Today, it is almost on the fringe of being non-slang, but not quite. Myles325a (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Whom It may concern,[edit]

Dear Whom It may concern,

You know the article Wales Millenium Centre, I am writing to say it's a little confusing because nobody had written the translation of the words on the building itself it's an obivious feature but tell the other members to do so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.182.63 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's there in the article, see Wales Millenium Centre#Calligraphy.—Emil J. 17:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite paranoid[edit]

The following sentence appears in the article Seattle General Strike; "Paranoid reactions called it the work of Bolsheviks..."

Now the word "paranoid" in this case sound very POV to me, and I have no qualms in replacing or removing it (you know, be bold and all that).

However, while I might be bold, I'm not at all sure that I'm knowledgeable enough to use the exact word that would fit the situation.

I realize that the Discussion Page for the article might be more appropriate for this question, but it would be nice to get some expert advise (yeah, I mean you) about what word to use. Some that have come to mind are (er... is...are....is...oh heck!) extreme, untoward, confused, or just dropping it entirely.

All help appreciated. Bunthorne (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alarmist? (Probably still too POV, and coincidentally mine:-) In any case whatever attribute is used should be referenced, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best ways to avoid POV is to avoid adjectives completely in situations like this. If it's well sourced (and a quick look at the article doesn't make that clear) we need simply say whose reactions they were. If it's not well sourced, maybe it shouldn't be there at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What about "alarmed"? That can be shown to be true. Actually the term "reactions" needs to be changed, too; a reaction doesn't call something a Bolshevik. "Alarmed commentators", perhaps. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. 'paranoid reactions' seems to me to be a code phrase for 'reactions by people who are paranoid', and as such it would be better to identify those people neutrally and directly than to use to use indirext aspersions. something like 'Conservative reactionaries called it' or 'Early anti-communist political figures called it...', or whatever's appropriate - I haven't really looked myself to see who was using that language. --Ludwigs2 22:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then, a non-paranoid person can have a one-off paranoid reaction, can't they? Or would the person themself be classified as temporarily paranoid for the duration of the reaction? I think not. Paranoid describes a person who habitually and generally suspects others of having bad motives against them. Having such a suspicion in one isolated case does not make the person paranoid, but their reaction could be described as similar to that which a paranoid person might make. And if you all disagree with me, I'll take it very personally and assume you're all out to get me sooner or later. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but wikipedia does not get to make the diagnosis of whether someone is behaving in a paranoid fashion; same reason we say Charles Manson was "an American criminal" rather than "a complete nutjob". Criminal is objective and factual, nutjob (and paranoid) are evaluatives.

and I'm glad that this appearance of disagreement has blinded you to our real plan. <Meeeeh heheheheheheheeeeeeh> --Ludwigs2 00:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. How could anyone see this angelic face and think he's a nutjob? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input y'all. I'll take Comet Tuttle's suggestion. So I'll get the credit and glory for making the change, and if it turns out to be horribly wrong, Comet gets the blame. Thanks again. Bunthorne (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]