| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 8 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 10 > |
| 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. |
July 9 Information
it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem, an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake but can be corrected with surgery.
Would that be..
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem; an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake - but can be corrected with surgery
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem, an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
I originally had it laid out with the semicolon but it looked weird to me after I looked at it 10 minutes later.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- First off, you'll probably want to put it in the active voice. Who discovered this? Then drop the "that" after "discovered".
- If it's not important who discovered it, the passive is appropriate. And the first "that" helps the reader parse the sentence, improving readability. -- 50.100.189.160 ( talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go with Option 3. Using a second dash would require the pieces on either side still make sense if the middle is omitted. In this case, it would imply the woman can be corrected instead of the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you intend to use this sentence on Wikipedia, I'd also drop "been living with", per WP:EUPHEMISM. She just had a breathing problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a euphemism. It conveys the information that the problem had been affecting her life for some time. --
50.100.189.160 (
talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't as blatant as some. But there's a subtle "So courageous!" vibe to it. It's like the opposite of "suffering from" (poor thing). Right between the two is "having" a problem. Boring and neutral. No left/right opposite to it, just the on/off "not having". The cleanest way to convey "for some time" is (at least roughly) stating that time with numbers (if it matters). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's a short word for "affecting her life for some time": chronic. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a euphemism. It conveys the information that the problem had been affecting her life for some time. --
50.100.189.160 (
talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Could do without the second punctuation break completely by changing "but" to "and". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's some tense mixup, too. "Can" should either be "could", or "restricted" become "restricts".
InedibleHulk
(talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will change "can" to could and use option 3. I'll also take out "been living with".
Flipandflopped
(Discuss,
Contribs) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd probably put "an entrapped epiglottis which restricted her air intake, but which could be corrected with surgery." Neither
relative clause is defining, so "that" is technically incorrect.
Tevildo (
talk) 20:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, "that" is correct for non-defining (non-restrictive) clauses, and is preferable here because it doesn't need repeating after the "but".
- No, it isn't. See English relative clauses#That or which for non-human antecedents. "Which" is arguably sometimes correct in defining clauses, but "that" is never correct in non-defining clauses. From a pedantic point of view, of course. People can (and do) say anything which they like. Tevildo ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, when posting multiple contributions to a thread, it's advisable to sign all of them, not just the last one. Tevildo ( talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, "that" is correct for non-defining (non-restrictive) clauses, and is preferable here because it doesn't need repeating after the "but".
- I'd probably put "an entrapped epiglottis which restricted her air intake, but which could be corrected with surgery." Neither
relative clause is defining, so "that" is technically incorrect.
Tevildo (
talk) 20:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will change "can" to could and use option 3. I'll also take out "been living with".
Flipandflopped
(Discuss,
Contribs) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd venture to disagree with Inedible Hulk here, on a couple of points.
- First, about the active voice. If it's not important to know who discovered her problem, then it's not necessary to state it, and the passive voice is just dandy for such a circumstance.
- Second, changing "but" to "and" is contraindicated. We're discussing a problem she's just discovered, so we need a contrast to reflect the good news that it's not the end of the world, and that is provided by "but", not "and". If it were even worse news, such as "... living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake and shortened her life", then "and" would be perfect and "but" would be out of place. See the difference? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a fan of changing "buts" to "ands" on Wikipedia. "But" always has a way of slanting things, making what comes before look better or worse, depending on the context. If you put the second thing first (it could be corrected, but restricted her air), the POV may be more apparent. Here, not so bad. If it really isn't important who discovered it, passive is fine. But it begs the question, I find. If it were in an actual article, I'd look for the "who", just for factual accuracy.
InedibleHulk
(talk) 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Often "but" should be changed to "and", but I'd caution against a wholesale slash and burn policy. See, I just used "but". "And" there would have been completely wrong. "But" always has a way of slanting things - dead right. It's supposed to make a contrast with what's gone before. --
Jack of Oz
[pleasantries] 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not totally heartless. If I'm mowing down howevers, althoughs and buts and a single harmless one seems to say "Please, sir! I have a purpose to fill," I'll let it go (and regret it later). I'm mostly after the ones where someone tries, "but" fails. Implies a contrast, but nobody fails without trying. It's cause and effect.
- Often "but" should be changed to "and", but I'd caution against a wholesale slash and burn policy. See, I just used "but". "And" there would have been completely wrong. "But" always has a way of slanting things - dead right. It's supposed to make a contrast with what's gone before. --
Jack of Oz
[pleasantries] 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a fan of changing "buts" to "ands" on Wikipedia. "But" always has a way of slanting things, making what comes before look better or worse, depending on the context. If you put the second thing first (it could be corrected, but restricted her air), the POV may be more apparent. Here, not so bad. If it really isn't important who discovered it, passive is fine. But it begs the question, I find. If it were in an actual article, I'd look for the "who", just for factual accuracy.
InedibleHulk
(talk) 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's some tense mixup, too. "Can" should either be "could", or "restricted" become "restricts".
InedibleHulk
(talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Same with failed presumptions, predictions or prevailing views. In hindsight, we can see they were wrong, and perception had no bearing on the outcome. If we say "Paulo thought it would work, but it didn't", we lend undue weight to Paulo's side of the dualism. Contrast needs roughly even opposites. Here, a guess about the future doesn't just pale next to the way things actually went, it was part of the way things went. Past Paulo didn't know any better. We should, by now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the original is better than any of the four alternatives listed, but a sixth version would be even better:
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem: an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but could be corrected with surgery
-- 50.100.189.160 ( talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Introducing a clarifying apposition is a full colon's job; never send a semicolon to do that. A semicolon precedes an independent clause that is loosely related to the first clause. — I'd favor She was found to have a chronic entrapment of the epiglottis, which … — Tamfang ( talk) 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What does the word " Borboletta" signify in the relevant language? I guess "relevant language" may mean Portuguese or Spanish. 86.160.87.215 ( talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to wikt:borboleta, borboleta (with only one t) in Portuguese means "butterfly".
- — Wavelength ( talk) 20:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hence the butterfly on the album cover. Oddly enough, Spanish does not use that word. Instead, it's mariposa, which literally means "María poses", or something like that. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, any ideas why one "t" should have been changed to two? 86.160.87.215 ( talk) 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Double consonants are common in Italian. See User:Wavelength/About Italian/Double consonants.
- —
Wavelength (
talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Italian for butterfly is farfalla. Neither the single nor double-t versions of that word seem to exist in Italian. Carlos Santana was born in Mexico, so he might be expected to use Spanish. But this could be some kind of play on words which is not immediately evident to an English-speaker, or it could just be a non-standard spelling. The article indicates the album title was in reference to another album done by a Brazilian group. In Google, "Borboletta" seems to refer strictly to the Santana album, and with no explanation on the spelling discrepancy. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Spanish article says that "The word appears in the album title with two T's maybe by analogy with the endings of Italian words, perhaps more familiar to American designers." There is no source, but this seems reasonable; cf. bruschetta, Henrietta, Rosetta, vendetta, Violetta. Lesgles ( talk) 23:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Italian for butterfly is farfalla. Neither the single nor double-t versions of that word seem to exist in Italian. Carlos Santana was born in Mexico, so he might be expected to use Spanish. But this could be some kind of play on words which is not immediately evident to an English-speaker, or it could just be a non-standard spelling. The article indicates the album title was in reference to another album done by a Brazilian group. In Google, "Borboletta" seems to refer strictly to the Santana album, and with no explanation on the spelling discrepancy. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 8 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 10 > |
| 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. |
July 9 Information
it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem, an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake but can be corrected with surgery.
Would that be..
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem; an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake - but can be corrected with surgery
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem, an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but can be corrected with surgery
I originally had it laid out with the semicolon but it looked weird to me after I looked at it 10 minutes later.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- First off, you'll probably want to put it in the active voice. Who discovered this? Then drop the "that" after "discovered".
- If it's not important who discovered it, the passive is appropriate. And the first "that" helps the reader parse the sentence, improving readability. -- 50.100.189.160 ( talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go with Option 3. Using a second dash would require the pieces on either side still make sense if the middle is omitted. In this case, it would imply the woman can be corrected instead of the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you intend to use this sentence on Wikipedia, I'd also drop "been living with", per WP:EUPHEMISM. She just had a breathing problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a euphemism. It conveys the information that the problem had been affecting her life for some time. --
50.100.189.160 (
talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't as blatant as some. But there's a subtle "So courageous!" vibe to it. It's like the opposite of "suffering from" (poor thing). Right between the two is "having" a problem. Boring and neutral. No left/right opposite to it, just the on/off "not having". The cleanest way to convey "for some time" is (at least roughly) stating that time with numbers (if it matters). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's a short word for "affecting her life for some time": chronic. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a euphemism. It conveys the information that the problem had been affecting her life for some time. --
50.100.189.160 (
talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Could do without the second punctuation break completely by changing "but" to "and". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's some tense mixup, too. "Can" should either be "could", or "restricted" become "restricts".
InedibleHulk
(talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will change "can" to could and use option 3. I'll also take out "been living with".
Flipandflopped
(Discuss,
Contribs) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd probably put "an entrapped epiglottis which restricted her air intake, but which could be corrected with surgery." Neither
relative clause is defining, so "that" is technically incorrect.
Tevildo (
talk) 20:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, "that" is correct for non-defining (non-restrictive) clauses, and is preferable here because it doesn't need repeating after the "but".
- No, it isn't. See English relative clauses#That or which for non-human antecedents. "Which" is arguably sometimes correct in defining clauses, but "that" is never correct in non-defining clauses. From a pedantic point of view, of course. People can (and do) say anything which they like. Tevildo ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, when posting multiple contributions to a thread, it's advisable to sign all of them, not just the last one. Tevildo ( talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, "that" is correct for non-defining (non-restrictive) clauses, and is preferable here because it doesn't need repeating after the "but".
- I'd probably put "an entrapped epiglottis which restricted her air intake, but which could be corrected with surgery." Neither
relative clause is defining, so "that" is technically incorrect.
Tevildo (
talk) 20:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will change "can" to could and use option 3. I'll also take out "been living with".
Flipandflopped
(Discuss,
Contribs) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd venture to disagree with Inedible Hulk here, on a couple of points.
- First, about the active voice. If it's not important to know who discovered her problem, then it's not necessary to state it, and the passive voice is just dandy for such a circumstance.
- Second, changing "but" to "and" is contraindicated. We're discussing a problem she's just discovered, so we need a contrast to reflect the good news that it's not the end of the world, and that is provided by "but", not "and". If it were even worse news, such as "... living with a breathing problem - an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake and shortened her life", then "and" would be perfect and "but" would be out of place. See the difference? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a fan of changing "buts" to "ands" on Wikipedia. "But" always has a way of slanting things, making what comes before look better or worse, depending on the context. If you put the second thing first (it could be corrected, but restricted her air), the POV may be more apparent. Here, not so bad. If it really isn't important who discovered it, passive is fine. But it begs the question, I find. If it were in an actual article, I'd look for the "who", just for factual accuracy.
InedibleHulk
(talk) 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Often "but" should be changed to "and", but I'd caution against a wholesale slash and burn policy. See, I just used "but". "And" there would have been completely wrong. "But" always has a way of slanting things - dead right. It's supposed to make a contrast with what's gone before. --
Jack of Oz
[pleasantries] 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not totally heartless. If I'm mowing down howevers, althoughs and buts and a single harmless one seems to say "Please, sir! I have a purpose to fill," I'll let it go (and regret it later). I'm mostly after the ones where someone tries, "but" fails. Implies a contrast, but nobody fails without trying. It's cause and effect.
- Often "but" should be changed to "and", but I'd caution against a wholesale slash and burn policy. See, I just used "but". "And" there would have been completely wrong. "But" always has a way of slanting things - dead right. It's supposed to make a contrast with what's gone before. --
Jack of Oz
[pleasantries] 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a fan of changing "buts" to "ands" on Wikipedia. "But" always has a way of slanting things, making what comes before look better or worse, depending on the context. If you put the second thing first (it could be corrected, but restricted her air), the POV may be more apparent. Here, not so bad. If it really isn't important who discovered it, passive is fine. But it begs the question, I find. If it were in an actual article, I'd look for the "who", just for factual accuracy.
InedibleHulk
(talk) 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's some tense mixup, too. "Can" should either be "could", or "restricted" become "restricts".
InedibleHulk
(talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Same with failed presumptions, predictions or prevailing views. In hindsight, we can see they were wrong, and perception had no bearing on the outcome. If we say "Paulo thought it would work, but it didn't", we lend undue weight to Paulo's side of the dualism. Contrast needs roughly even opposites. Here, a guess about the future doesn't just pale next to the way things actually went, it was part of the way things went. Past Paulo didn't know any better. We should, by now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the original is better than any of the four alternatives listed, but a sixth version would be even better:
- it was discovered that she had been living with a breathing problem: an entrapped epiglottis that restricted her air intake, but could be corrected with surgery
-- 50.100.189.160 ( talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Introducing a clarifying apposition is a full colon's job; never send a semicolon to do that. A semicolon precedes an independent clause that is loosely related to the first clause. — I'd favor She was found to have a chronic entrapment of the epiglottis, which … — Tamfang ( talk) 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What does the word " Borboletta" signify in the relevant language? I guess "relevant language" may mean Portuguese or Spanish. 86.160.87.215 ( talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to wikt:borboleta, borboleta (with only one t) in Portuguese means "butterfly".
- — Wavelength ( talk) 20:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hence the butterfly on the album cover. Oddly enough, Spanish does not use that word. Instead, it's mariposa, which literally means "María poses", or something like that. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, any ideas why one "t" should have been changed to two? 86.160.87.215 ( talk) 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Double consonants are common in Italian. See User:Wavelength/About Italian/Double consonants.
- —
Wavelength (
talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Italian for butterfly is farfalla. Neither the single nor double-t versions of that word seem to exist in Italian. Carlos Santana was born in Mexico, so he might be expected to use Spanish. But this could be some kind of play on words which is not immediately evident to an English-speaker, or it could just be a non-standard spelling. The article indicates the album title was in reference to another album done by a Brazilian group. In Google, "Borboletta" seems to refer strictly to the Santana album, and with no explanation on the spelling discrepancy. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Spanish article says that "The word appears in the album title with two T's maybe by analogy with the endings of Italian words, perhaps more familiar to American designers." There is no source, but this seems reasonable; cf. bruschetta, Henrietta, Rosetta, vendetta, Violetta. Lesgles ( talk) 23:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Italian for butterfly is farfalla. Neither the single nor double-t versions of that word seem to exist in Italian. Carlos Santana was born in Mexico, so he might be expected to use Spanish. But this could be some kind of play on words which is not immediately evident to an English-speaker, or it could just be a non-standard spelling. The article indicates the album title was in reference to another album done by a Brazilian group. In Google, "Borboletta" seems to refer strictly to the Santana album, and with no explanation on the spelling discrepancy. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)