Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 8

Translation for "Sauglattismus"

I am looking for an equivalent in English. For those who read German, see de:Sauglattismus . For those who don't, I'm looking for an English word, possibly but not necessarily a neologism, used as an expression of cultural criticism. It targets the trend or need for everything to be funny just for the sake of funniness. (something like "for the lulz" in internet-speak). In my particular instance, a music critic is pointing out how a musical group manages to display a sense of humour on their new album without sinking to the level of "Sauglattismus". Any suggestions? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no equivalent for this word in English. Probably the closest English word to sauglatt is hilarious. So, the approximate analogous form would be *hilaritism. This word does not exist in English. A similar kind of cultural critique does exist in the English-speaking world, though it doesn't seem to have gained the same degree of traction as in Switzerland, since it can't be summed up in a single, widely recognized word. An example of this kind of cultural critique in English is the book Amusing Ourselves to Death. Marco polo (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This blog, in a post dated October 22, 2004, uses the neologism laugh-trackism referring to laugh tracks. This expression has a very similar meaning to Sauglattismus and makes sense in context, though I can't find any other examples of its use. Marco polo (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Marco polo! Hilaritism coincides with what I had mind. (And thanks for the Postman link too, I hadn't thought of that). Laugh-trackism even captures the tyrannical, LOUD, knee-slapping aspect of Sauglattismus. I was asked by one of the recording artists to translate the review where the underlying context is a (now possibly obsolete) trend in jazz to be silly, mimick circus music, parodize styles, quote all sorts of popular and other songs, just for the sake of quoting them, etc. Of course this can be done intelligently too - it boils down to a matter of taste, I suppose. And the reviewer seems to have had his share of listening to hilaritism and laugh-trackism in music. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Forced hilarity", maybe? Deor (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Infotainment-addiction, maybe? 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.

In spoken English, I often find 'wacky' and 'zany' are used in this sense. I think I've seen 'wacky' used this way in written English, but usually it needs additional context when written to clarify that the writer considers it a bad thing. While "How wacky of you" can be spoken in a way that clearly indicates a dim view of your taste, when written it might be mistaken for a sincere use of outdated language. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've read Douglas Adams (or was it Terry Pratchett, or both?) make bitter comments about the depressing feeling of hearing one's new novel described as "wacky". (Damn, that was a complicated sentence, good thing the OP's used to German.) I notice that Captain Wacky redirects to Australian ex-PM Paul Keating, which is surely perjorative. This link [1] says he was given the nickname by colleague Gary Gray, after "his relationship with Mr Keating broke down". So I think a reasonable translation of Sauglattismus, at least in the context mentioned above, is wackiness. 213.122.69.140 (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a redirect to Paul Keating in my Wikipedia. Which one are you using? It's a disambiguation page that mentions Keating, along with Homer Simpson. I must say I've never heard Keating referred to as this, and I can only assume that Gary Gray copied it from the Simpsons. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

213.122 must be a time traveler. Captain Wacky was a redirect to Paul Keating for about 4 months in 2006, but not since then. +Angr 20:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the ‘contemptuous lol’; a form of ego defense that reduces existing dissonance in pop culture? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. I decided to use "forced hilarity", as suggested by Deor, because it conveys the meaning without distracting by being an unknown neologism. I added a footnote, however, including some of the other suggestions and explanations. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyrillic-alphabet text, which language?

On this monument "to the memory of the 29,000 martyrs of the ghetto in Grodno" (according to its Hebrew text):

• What's the language on the lower left?
• Does its text differ from the Hebrew?

Our photo archive records don't indicate where this monument stands; that and any related information would be appreciated. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

тысяч is the genitive plural of тысяча, the Russian word for "thousand", so I'm going to go with Russian. Despite the location of Grodno, it's not Belarussian, as the inscription uses the letter и, which isn't used in Belarussian. I don't know Russian or Hebrew, so I can't tell you if they say different things, but maybe if you tell us what the Hebrew says, someone else (e.g. Jack of Oz, who knows Russian) will be able to tell us if the Russian says something different. +Angr 14:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. From wikt:thousand I see that the Belarussian word for thousand is also тысяча, so that one word isn't actually sufficient to distinguish the two languages. But I stand by the rest of what I said: it can't be Belarussian because it uses и. The letters for various "i"-like sounds are a good diagnostic for distinguishing Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian. Of the three letters и, і, and ы, Russian (since 1918) uses и and ы but not і; Ukrainian uses и and і but not ы; and Belarussian uses і and ы but not и. +Angr 15:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cyrillic text is in Russian. It reads:

ПАМЯТИ
29 ТЫСЯЧ
УЗНИКОВ ГЕТТО -
ЖЕРТВ ФАШИЗМА.
В ЭТОМ РАЙОНЕ В 1941 Г.-1943 Г.
НАХОДИЛОСЬ ГЕТТО.

An approximate translation would be the following:

IN MEMORY
OF 29 THOUSAND
GHETTO PRISONERS -
VICTIMS OF FASCISM.
IN THIS AREA IN 1941-1943
THERE WAS A GHETTO.

Is this much different from the Hebrew text? I don't understand it, but I notice that there aren't any dates mentioned, and the words that the Hebrew Wikipedia has as interwiki links of the articles on fascism and ghetto, פשיזם and גטו respectively, don't seem to be there. --Магьосник (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

According to one document I found, the memorial is located on Ulitsa Zamkovaya 7.[2] -Sluzzelin talk 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the Russian is not a direct translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew starts "To the memory of 29000 of the holy." I think it continues "from the Ghetto in Grodnah", but I'm unsure of a couple of letters - "me-" in "mehageto" seems odd, and I'm guessing the first letter on the last line must be "ב", though it looks like "כ" to me. The letters of "from the Ghetto" are spaced out, presumably for emphasis: I first thought they were an abbreviation. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OP adds: what's between the double-quotes in the first line, above, is my idiomatic Hebrew>English translation of the Hebrew-language inscription on the monument. (קדושים, literally "holy" [m.pl.] is "martyrs" in this context.) Soviet monuments to slaughtered Jews characteristically omit the ethnic identity which the cognoscenti would derive from the word "ghetto" while understanding that the perps called "fascists" (and sometimes "bourgeois") are actually Nazis and their henchmen. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So the fourth line reads מהגטו and does contain the word "ghetto". I misread it as מהכטו or מהבטו, and deduced incorrectly that there was no mention of ghetto in the Hebrew inscription. --Магьосник (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a small comment on the usage of fascism: It is true that, in English, a narrow definition of fascism refers to a political movement in Italy led by Mussolini, while a wider definition can include just about anything (for example, my American spouse often refers to the Swiss as fascists because they don't embrace libertarianism quite the way Americans do). Yet post-Soviet states traditionally refer to Nazis as Fascists. Quite recently, I witnessed several Victory Day events in a former Soviet Republic, and the Nazis were usually referred to as фашисты (fascists). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just on this post: It is an inferential anacoluthon while identity politics or ideological politics have powerful ‘shotgun drive’ in concealing the question in context (or epistemic realm)? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate the mocking of my poor syntax, but fail to understand what your last twenty words mean. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, for the misunderstanding. No--I do make lot of mistakes, but your syntax is optimum and the contributions are very good qualities. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

...and the OP adds: For the sake of enhanced understanding in our collaborative discourse here: I'm intermittently working on translating to English the texts that appear on memorial monuments (in Europe and elsewhere) to victims of the Holocaust. My aim is to render these faithful to the source, with whatever contextual details are available in our archives' registry and what our limited research resources can add at this time. Understanding does require relevant knowledge of the sociopolitical matrix of the time and place involved; this we must, for now, leave to the reader. Indepth queries are welcome on my talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

History of "the"

Our article on Middle English, while discussing the shift from Old English to Early Middle English, states that "But most ... case endings disappear in the Early ME period, including most of the dozens of forms of the word the." Were there really dozens of forms of the and what kind of function did they have? In context, it doesn't seem that the article is referring to different genders (as with modern German die, der, and das), which in any case would only account for a mere handful, not dozens. So what's the story? Matt Deres (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's over a dozen forms of the word "the" in Old English. I don't know if that's what you are looking for. I know you specifically linked to Middle English, but the only thing I can figure out (and I have not had a chance to study the older forms of English much) is that it is referring to the phasing out of the Old English case variations for the word "the." Falconus^{p t c} 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that's funny. There are roughly 20 demonstrative pronouns related to "the/that/those" listed in Introduction to Old English by Peter Baker. A lot of the forms overlap, so the actual forms are around 12. There are also roughly 20 demonstrative pronouns related to "this/these" listed in the same book. A lot of them overlap as well, so the actual forms are around 12 here as well. In any case, I wouldn't call 12 or 20 "dozens of forms, and I think it would be wrong to include "pronouns related to this/these" when counting "pronouns related to the/that/those". --Kjoonlee 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the article to say "roughly one dozen forms of the word the" and linked it to the same place (Old English "the" forms) that I put in my previous post. If anybody comes along here and decides that I was wrong to do that, change it however you see fit. Falconus^{p t c} 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the linked article on Old English declension, I find a maximum of 11 forms of the word the in any single variety of Old English, e.g., 1) se; 2) Þæt; 3) sēo; 4) Þā; 5) Þone; 6) Þæs; 7) Þǣre; 8) Þāra; 9) Þǣm; 10) Þām; 11) Þȳ. Some of these forms have more than one grammatical function. For example, Þā is not only the plural nominative and accusative form (for all genders), but also the feminine singular accusative form. Some of these forms have other variants that would be in use in a different variant of Old English, but from this chart it seems that no variant had more than 11 discrete forms. So "roughly one dozen" sounds okay. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the correction. I think it's awesome that there's someplace you can ask a question about Old English declensions and get multiple thoughtful and helpful answers in less than an hour. And just think of how many replies this would have gotten if they used Old English in Family Guy or hardcore porn! Matt Deres (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I call rule 34 on Old English. +Angr 18:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Flen flyys count as Old English porn? (Okay, Middle English...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So "ye" instead of "Þe" is just plain stupid and not some printing replacement, because there was no "Þe"? Rimush (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

See Ye_(pronoun). According to that page, "ye" was the Middle English word for "you (plural)", and "ye" was also used to replace "Þe" because they did not have "Þ" on the printing presses. The word "ye" never meant "Þe", it was just the approximation on the press. At least that's how I'm understanding it. Falconus^{p t c} 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but according to the list of Old English determiners above, there was no "Þe". Did the word "Þe" show up in Middle English? I always for some reason believed that Thorn wasn't used in ME anymore. Rimush (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the printer/scribe and the dialect. Thorn lost most of its use in the Early Middle English period, but its use continued strongly in Northumbrian, for example, and a lot of scribal work, as did yogh and wynn. Steewi (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was a "þe"; however, it was more of a complementizer (if I understand what a compartmentalizer is); it had the sense of "that" or "which". The account of Ohthere of Hålogaland has a comment about the funerary practices of the Lapps: "...ealle þá hwíle þe þæt lič biþ inne", which is basically equivalent to "...all the while that the body is inside". Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thus my point - that's Old English. Thorn was only used in the Middle English period in Northumbrian, for the most part. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the opening of the article "Ye": "Ye (IPA: /jiː/) was the second-person, plural, personal pronoun (nominative) in Old English as "ge"." Is part of the sentence missing because I am not seeing how the phrase "in Old English as "ge"" fits in the sentence. Rmhermen (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that something is missing. In OE, the sound of "y" as "ye" was spelled with a "g" ("y" was exclusively a vowel), so the force of this part of the sentence is "spelled 'ge' in Old English". Nyttend (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase entered the article on 13 May 2008 as part of a merger from another article. I can't find "ge" by itself in the May 2008 versions of that article, so this was apparently a typo on Sonarpulse's part. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

able to

Hi, I'm not a native speaker and I've got a question concerning the acceptability of the following constructions:

1. I was the last person able to do it.
2. I was the last person to be able to do it.
3. I was the last person being able to do it.

Are all of these correct, or is one/are some awkward/unacceptable/wrong? Thanks in advance -- 87.123.209.91 (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

1 and 2 are both correct (I tend to think 2 sounds a bit better, but it depends a bit on the context). 3 is not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- 87.123.209.91 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 3 is wrong precisely, merely that it's awkward. Don't use it. (Compare "I was the last person walking", which is correct and not awkward.)—msh210℠ 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that 3 is wrong. No native speaker of English would utter such a sentence, and I think that all would recognize it as a mistake. I don't know if it violates any formal grammatical rules, but it certainly violates standard English usage. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My preference is #1 - it sounds the best to my central North Carolinian ear. #2 is by no means wrong, just a little wordier. #3 sounds pretty nonstandard; I agree that it should not be used. Falconus^{p t c} 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"I was the last person who was able to do it" would also be acceptable usage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

1 and 2 are both correct (I prefer 1), but three is absolutely not correct and sounds like a foreigner. Evangeline (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Though you do sometimes hear "I being the last person able to do it," as the end of an explanation. "They all looked at me, I being the last person able to do it". So you might also get "They all looked at me, because I was the last person being able to do it," but it's tortuous. It might be an unusual tense, actually. 213.122.69.140 (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an unusual tense, it's an example of a participial verb. That kind of usage can't be a standalone sentence, though, it can only be a modifier attached to another sentence. (And technically, I think in that usage it's "supposed" to be me rather than I, although that may be changing.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed your link, Rjanag. --Магьосник (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you can have a clause "I being the last person able to do it" parenthetically within a sentence. However, it is not standard English usage (and I think not part of the repertoire of native speakers) to say or write "[because] I was the last person being able to do it." In the latter case, the correct options would be either 1) omit the verbal form altogether as in 1) above; or 2) use the form "to be" as in 2) above. Marco polo (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

June 9

Jump meaning in Japan

I always see Asian food with the word Jump in the name, such as "Jump Chicken". Is this the same kind of Jump that is in the title Shonen Jump, a Japanese manga magazine? What does it mean to Asians that I'm, an English-speaker, not getting? Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 06:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jump is jump in Japanese. I've never heard of "jumping chicken". If you mean odorigui or "jumping shrimp", see these. [3], [4], and [5]. Oda Mari (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"I always see Asian food with the word Jump in the name" - where? I've never seen it.　The only thing on my Google search (ジャンプ　チキン) remotely connected was this dogfood. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if it's related at all, but the cooking term "sauté" is derived from the French word for "jump". (Because with the "proper" technique, the food in the pan "jumps" when sautéing.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I live in Oswego, New York, and Asian restaurants do this frequently, adding Jump to the into the names of Asian dishes. I assume it has nothing to actually do with the act of jumping. I figured it meant something to Japanese speakers. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not a typo for 'Jumbo'? Or maybe you should ask? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of "Asian" restaurants are we talking about? Indian? Japanese? Chinese? Middle eastern? That could help us narrow down what language this possible link is to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Extravagances and extravaganzas

An extravagance is usually considered something undesirable and worthy of criticism. It's wasteful and immoral. Right?

But an extravaganza is something that attracts the positive attention of many people, whether as contributors, participants or spectators. It "may more broadly refer to an elaborate, spectacular, and expensive theatrical production". It's a good thing, if not something we would necessarily be involved in every day.

So why do we have these very similar words to mean things that carry very different moral charges? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The "enjoyable but not sinful excess" is an example of "enough is enough, and too much is plenty," maybe. I found a reference giving the origin as extravagari, referring to "unclassified papal decrees," which conjured up the image of endless rolling hills of parchment back in the 14th century. Compare with "over the top," a phrase that can be also used as a criticism or an accolade ("Jack often uses an over-the-top manner of writing."  ;-) ) --- OtherDave (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Extravagari" means "wander beyond" or "outside" (in the sense of the papal documents, they were ones that didn't fit into any particular category like letters, bulls, canonical decrees, etc, but it could literally mean walking somewhere far away or wandering around without any purpose). "Extravagant" and "extravaganza" both mean something excessive, and since the latter comes directly from Italian, I guess Italians don't think excess is immoral! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The key defining feature of "Extravagance" is it's over-the-top nature; it wouldn't be extravagant if it wasn't far beyond what is "normal". An extravaganza is also over-the-top, spectacular, etc.Riffraffselbow (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

From Latin nouns ending in ntia, English has some words via French and ending in nce.

(Exceptions are Vulgar Latin stantia [unattested] and Old French influence.)

• extravagance (definitions and etymology)
• stance (definitions and etymology)
• cadence (definitions and etymology)
• credence (definitions and etymology)
• influence (definitions and etymology)

From some of the same Latin words ending in ntia, English has other words via Italian and ending in nza.

• extravaganza (definitions and etymology)
• stanza (definitions and etymology)
• cadenza (definitions and etymology)
• credenza (definitions)
• influenza (definitions and etymology)

English used extended meanings of those Italian words when it adopted them. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the "moral" differences between extravagant and extravaganza may have something to do with who is performing the action. An extravagance usually refers to something from the buyer's point of view: "Jack, I think you need to cut down on the Faberge egg purchases; they're a little extravagant, don't you think?". However, sellers are the ones who hold extravaganzas: "Come on down to Discount Bob's Savings Extravaganza!" It's in the seller's best interests to advertise their largess. Matt Deres (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Matt. Oscar Wilde would definitely have agreed with that. I'm getting that if you're going to be excessive, it's best to really go to town and exaggerate the extravagance, flaunt it, celebrate it. Thanks everyone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

English also has the following words.

• intelligence (definitions and etymology) from Latin via Old French
• intelligentsia (definitions and etymology) from Latin via Russian

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

[I am wikifying the 10 words mentioned in my message of 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)]

Thanks, Wavelength. There's always a bigger picture, isn't there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sentence help -- 宿の件

Hi... any clues about this one?

宿の件ですが、わたしの家にとまれば、いいですよ。

I want the sentence to mean something like "There's an inn (i.e. an inn nearby), but you are welcome to stay at my house", but does it? I can't quite get my head round 宿の件. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.34.56 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 

"宿の件ですが、" means "as for the/your lodging". "There's an inn nearby" would be "近くに宿もありますが". Oda Mari (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I cannot quite understand how﹃...の件ですが﹄means "as for". Is it possible to dissect that phrase or should I just treat it as a unit? Also, would﹃宿は、...﹄mean the same thing? 81.151.34.56 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

件 means 'business' or 'matter', so the phrase﹃...の件ですが﹄would mean 'as for the business of...' or 'as for the matter of...,' and can be shortened to 'as for'. As for your last question,﹃宿は、...﹄does mean more or less the same thing, but is more abrupt. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry to bang on about this, but I would like some more advice on ですが. In other sentences I've encountered, ですが always means "is but". For example, "東京は、おもしろいですが、ぶっかがたかいです。", "Tokyo is interesting but the prices are expensive". In this case we would seem to have, paraphrasing, "There is the matter of the lodging, but you are welcome to stay at my house". Is that how it works? 81.151.34.56 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
ですが is just a casual way of introducing a topic. Japanese has many topic markers, of which は is only one. Also, が doesn't necessarily mean "but". You have to look at the context. If I were to translate your sentence into natural English, it would be﹃Regarding lodging — you should stay at my house.﹄Paul Davidson (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically you could put it that way. ですが is very often used when introducing a topic which is thought of as some sort of problem or is troubling in some way or another. You could think of it as "I'm sorry to bring this up, BUT...." Alternatively, you could just think of it as 'as for', as said above. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks KageTora, I think I see it now. 81.151.34.56 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

The Simpsons in Catalan

According to this article, The Simpsons has been dubbed into Catalan, but have DVDs ever been released with the Catalan audio tracks? LANTZY^TALK 23:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If nobody here knows, you might get an answer at the reference desk of the Catalan Wikipedia. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

June 10

Estonian labour parties

Would there be any difference in meaning if translated in English between Tööerakond and Tööliste Partei? --Soman (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Language used in the KJV Bible

Why does the King James Bible, especially the book of Revelation, use such strange repetitive grammar such as "Went forth conquering, and to conquer" or "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" or "time, times, and half a time" and other thoroughly confusing verses.

Besides the symbolism, was John intentionally trying to be cryptic à la Nostradamus or did they really talk like that back then? Either way it annoys me. (so does Shakespeare btw, despite my username, I'm actually no fan of language that needlessly makes me work hard at understanding it!) This is why I'm partial to the NLT Bible, at least it's in plain modern English.

I've read the article on Early Modern English, but it doesn't really explain why the repetitious grammar, and unusual ordering of words that is especially prevalent in KJV Revelation. I can tolerate the thees and thous, but when I see things like "thou hast there them that" (Rev 2:14) I cringe.

I'm not asking for an eschatological interpretation of these verses, but rather more interested in knowing why it's worded so inefficiently and if this was really how they spoke in those times. -- œ^™ 11:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(Multiple Edit Conflicts)I'm sure someone more expert will be along to answer more authoritatively, but from my limited study of the subject, my understanding is that it was a common semi-poetical stylistic feature of ancient Hebrew writing to repeat the same information twice using variant wording, such as (inventing on the spot) ". . . the city was utterly destroyed and laid low." When such phraseology was translated, the translators may not have fully understood this, or may not have had appropriate synonyms available in the target language. Such problems were probably exacerbated by the multiple translations involved (i.e. Hebrew->Greek(->Latin?)->English).

In addition, the grammatical structures of original and target languages are often so different that, when translating, it is sometimes difficult to strike a balance between word-for-word renditions that would be gibberish and more meaningful ones that actually distort the original meaning more than is judged acceptable. To this can be added the problem of much metaphorical or allusive terminology whose meaning is now obscure or lost (try analysing a modern newspaper or magazine article - you may be surprised at how much of the text comprises current or fossilised metaphor and other idioms that in literal terms mean something quite different from what you and I understand).

Then there is the question of the original author's style and intent. John of Patmos was in the Revelation writing in a well established tradition of Apocalyptic literature that had developed its own distinctive and somewhat obscure style, and sometimes deliberately concealed meanings for fear or reprisal - for example, references to the fall of "Babylon" that had happened long before are probably intended as forecasts of a forthcoming fall of Rome, which the ruling Roman authorities would have deemed treasonous; ditto references to "the Beast" (whose "number" is now thought to be 616, not 666 as faulty transcriptions had it), probably intended to refer to the Emperor Nero - yes, John was using cryptic language (and actual numerical codes) that his intended readers would understand but which could not, so to speak, be held up in court against him.

Your "plain modern English" translation has had the benefit of nearly four centuries more research and development in general translation techniques and historical studies than was available to the KJV scholars: even so, it may in some places have sacrificed a degree of original meaning for the sake of readability. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not having looked at the passages in question, I suspect that the repetitiveness was there in the original Greek, and merely translated that way in the King James Bible for the sake of being faithful to the original. In other words, it's not the fault of Early Modern English that it's that way! I do remember reading somewhere that repeating oneself was a common rhetorical device in Biblical Hebrew, and is often found in the Old Testament too, although there it was more a case of using synonyms than repeating the exact same word. (This could often be rendered into English using synonyms too, as in Psalm 121, "He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep".) Revelation was written in Greek, but by someone who was familiar with Hebrew Scripture and who may therefore have used the same rhetorical device, rhetorical device. +Angr 12:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - see the Authorised King James Version page: "In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts." The translators would have been making trouble for themselves by straying much from the original - many educated people could read Greek then. Blame St John the Divine! Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Revelation belongs to a popular genre at the time known as apocalyptic literature, and its stylistic choices are probably related to that. It's not certain whether the author knew Hebrew, since it was no longer the vernacular at that time. As a side-note, the Greek Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated was missing some of Revelation from its source manuscripts, and had to be supplemented by the Latin Vulgate. Paul Davidson (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did say "someone familiar with Hebrew Scripture", not "someone who knew Hebrew". I think Jews of that place and time were more familiar with the Septuagint than the Hebrew original, but I'm sure the Septuagint is just as faithful as the KJV in translating idioms word for word. +Angr 12:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A similar thing happens in Buddhist texts, many of which were in poetic form as an aide-mémoire, since few people could read or write. Although much of the poetry is lost in translation, the redundancies (which might not have been repetitions in the original) remain.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"time, times, and half a time" has prophetic significance, it's not just some repetitiveness. Rimush (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you check translations other than the King James, you will see that they have the same kind of repetition. As Angr suspects, the repetition is present in the original Greek (which you can see side-by-side next to your choice of English translations at Great Treasures). This is a poetic or rhetorical device used to emphasize the repeated word or phrase. In the case of a phrase like "went forth conquering, and to conquer", the device is used to mean something like "he went forth bent on nothing but endless conquest" but to convey this idea in a more poetic way. Perhaps this device is not to your taste, but others over the centuries have obviously thought it effective. Marco polo (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As to unusual ordering of words and readability, remember that the King James Version of the Bible was written in a deliberately archaic style, both to sound more 'dignified' and because it was influenced by earlier translations. That is, it is trying to sound more 'biblical' and so would have been considered old-fashioned even when it was first printed. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there would be a use of pairs such as "let or hindrance", which as I understand it came from the Norman Conquest and the introduction of Norman French into the court language of England. One word in the pair is Norman, the other word is English, and this practice was designed so that the meaning could be understood by any Englishman, be he great or small. It looks like this contributed to the poetry of the KJV. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" (Isaiah 21:9) the verb "fallen" is indeed repeated twice in the original Hebrew.

About "time, times, and half a time" it suffices to say that it's in Daniel. The language of the Book of Daniel is as weird as its content (both the Aramaic and the Hebrew chapters). The professor who taught me Biblical Aramaic said that "whoever wrote the Book of Daniel, used hard drugs".

In "He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep" (Psalm 121) two different words (synonyms) are used in Hebrew, too. The KJV translators did their job well.

I don't know New Testament Greek, so i can't say anything about it.

Although i have a B.A. in Hebrew, i am not actually a full-blown expert on Biblical Hebrew, so i can't say much about the literary side of these repetitions. But, quite simply, some translations of the Bible want to be as literal as possible. If you think that it doesn't sound well in English, you are probably in good company. It's completely subjective, but i think that these repetitions do sound very well in Hebrew; I always say that reading the translated Bible feels like reading a religious book, but reading the Bible in Hebrew feels like reading fine poetry.

You may find it interesting that the KJV translators didn't translate every repetition in the original language into a repeated word in English. For example, Deuteronomy 16:20 in Hebrew is literally "Justice justice you shall follow", and in KJV it's "That which is altogether just shalt thou follow". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Some of the repetition in Biblical translations is an attempt to translate cognate accusative constructions in the original Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in Parallelism (rhetoric) and Biblical poetry, but I am not sure how much those articles help to answer your question. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Thanks to ALL of you for the great answers, very interesting reading! -- œ^™ 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

IPA help requested.

Resolved: Thanks to both Marco polo and Angr for such a speedy response here and on the article. Brammers (talk/c) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

One of the DYKs today is about scrutinyite, a mineral. However, the article says that its pronunciation is /skruːtnɛitə/. I'm not sure if that's quite right, since to me that seems to be (roughly) "skroot-neh-it-tuh". Other proposals on the talk page are /skruːtənɛit/ and /skruːtəniːaɪt/. One of the article's references gives this pronunciation. Could someone fluent in IPA recommend the correct spelling please? I feel the urge to make sure the article's a-ok today since it'll be receiving extra attention. Brammers (talk/c) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The last IPA rendering (/skruːtəniːaɪt/) is the only one that is close to correct. The others are certainly wrong. I would change that last one to this: /skruːtəniaɪt/. It is a bit idealized, but it is close enough to the varying ways this would actually be pronounced in different variants of English (General American, British Received Pronunciation, etc.). Marco polo (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spanish transcription and translation

I've attempted to both copy down and translate the Spanish in File:Pink grain in Iraq, 1971.jpg, with some success. However, there are several numerous holes and guesswork on my part (hence the ?s). I know very little Spanish, so anyone with a better knowledge could probably assist. Any available context can be found in the linked article, although I don't think there are any more place or people references. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no file by that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was so carefully copying down the name I forgot the jpg extension. Silly me. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find it from the search box. Odd. Anyway, my Spanish is rudimentary, but I'll give a literal translation a try:

SEMILLA DE TRIGO - seed/kernel of wheat [wheat seed - obviously it was supposed to be planted, not eaten]

VARIEDAD SIETE CERROS - variety seven hills (possibly the variety name, as in "the seven hills of Rome")

CRIBADA Y TRATADO POR - screened and tested for/by

UNION DE CREDITO - union of credit [Credit Union]

AGRICOLA DE HERMOSILLO - agricultural/farming of Hermosillo ("farm" is a different word)

S.A. [Sociedad Anonima] DE C.V. [Capital Variable] - "anonymous society" of "variable capital" [a type of company in Mexico]

HERMOSILLO, SONORA - [a city and state in Mexico]

50 [?] KGS. AL ENVASAR - [weight] to the "to pack" [weight per bag]

NO USARLA PARA ALIMENTO - not to be used for [human] food/nourishment

GROWN IN MEXICO - or that's what it looks like to me (CULTIVADO would be "grown" in Spanish)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs. I'd got a fair of it done (as on the file page, I fear you may have duplicated my work), but you've added a lot. It seems "UNION DE CREDITO AGRICOLA DE HERMOSILLO" is the name of business there, which makes sense. (here). I wonder whether anyone happens to know whether "Variedad siete cerros" is indeed a variety name, as both you and I supposed? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you had done so, and tried to work it out independently. The top line on the bag is a little hard to read, but I already knew that "semilla" means "seed" (that's from the root for "semen", actually - which also means "seed". Probably TMI.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This source lists "Siete Cerrros" as a Mexican wheat variety. Marco polo (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish article es:Sociedad anónima corresponds to the English article Joint stock company. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It's funny the expressions different languages come up with to translate English words that don't quite have a direct translation. I have to wonder how anyone expected the people of Iraq to read Spanish. That would be like China sending us products containing toxins, with the warning printed in Chinese. Not that that kind of thing ever happens. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And according to this,[6] Siete Cerros ("Seven Hills") is a small settlement within Hermosillo. Nearly everything called "Seven Hills" seems to relate back to the famous Seven Hills of Rome, and I expect the producers of that variety thought it would be a nifty name for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

June 11

500-word Swadesh List?

I read yesterday that the Swadesh List started out with 500 words! Did Mr. Swadesh leave any records as to what those 500 words were? Subliminable (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It may help if you told us where you read that yesterday, as the article here gives no indication that that be the case. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I read it in Campbell's 2004 tome Historical Linguistics: An introduction. You can find the page here.

Another page that cites this information: Talk:Swadesh_list Subliminable (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if it's mentioned on the talk page of one of our articles, yet not in the article itself, you may want to ask the person who mentioned it to a) see if you can get it included in the article ; and b) find out where he/she got this information from. You may find that they got it from the same source as you, in which case you may hit a dead end, but it's worth a try at this stage. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

-ization

hangulization, romanization, cyrillization. What other terms are in use for other scripts? 70.162.12.102 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

sankritization? --Soman (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You must mean Sanskritisation. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabization can mean several things, one of which is "the transliteration of loanwards into the Arabic alphabet". ---Sluzzelin talk 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Hebraization of English and Hebraization of surnames. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding some limited use of "kanaization" and "katakanaization". Warofdreams talk 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What about transliteration to the Greek writing system? Hellenization usually means something else. I did find some usage of the word grecization in this sense, but I'm not sure it is commonly used by scholars. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Sinhalization and Tamilization are usually socio-political concepts, but here are some script-related uses of those words - Tamilization, Sinhalization (that last one also mentions nativization). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(Oooh, I just saw Marco polo used hellenization in the transscriptive sense, one thread below :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutiae

May someone know the original Hebrew name of this Jewish sect, please? Or in Arabic? --Omidinist (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Philo of Alexandria didn't say. but the usual English spelling is Therapeutae. Since they were not necessarily exclusively Jews, and are attested in early Roman Egypt, their name might not have had a Hebrew origin at all (and certainly not Arabic). By the way, we still don't really know the original Hebrew or Aramaic form of the word "Essene"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They seem to have been very much part of the Hellenistic world, whose common language was Greek, and are not particularly associated with the lands where Hebrew was once spoken. The origin of their name is probably Greek, though one scholar has argued that their name is a Hellenization of the Pāli term Theravada. For that matter, the common language of Judaea (and Samaria and Galilee) at the time of the Therapeutae was not Hebrew, but Aramaic. Marco polo (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The name "Therapeutae" itself is certainly Greek (though its exact meaning isn't totally clear); Omidinist was asking if it was a translation/calque from another language. I don't think we have any specific evidence that it is... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. --Omidinist (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

quaid e milleth

What does the (Arabic?) honorific "quaid e milleth" mean. I read somewhere it means Leader of the nation/faithful. Would appreciate a precise English translation--Sodabottle (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Leader of the Nation" is correct. The first word, quaid (which is not correct), is qaed in Alqaeda. --Omidinist (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, quaid and qaeda are not the same. Quaid ('Commander') is قائد whilst qaeda ('Base') is قاعدة. The is a wiki article on millet, which can be translated as 'nation', but not exactly in the Western sense. --Soman (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So sorry. I correct myself. They are two different words. And nation in an old sense might mean Umma (followers). --Omidinist (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth the ALA-LC transliteraton of the Urdu is qāʼid-i millat. --Cam (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Two questions

1. What is the best first language to have if you want to learn new languages? I first thought of something like Italian or Russian, with a lot of deeply related languages and not "corrupted" by multiple language families mixing (like what happned in English ;) But what about learning a not related language? It could be a dead language or conlang since this is hypotheticla

2. This is totaly unrealted to the first but what language ahs the most rigid syntax and grammar? I am told of the Western languages latin has the most flexible, what has the least? 76.230.7.123 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to question 1), it is unlikely that you will get a definitive answer, since none of us is familiar with all of the world's languages. That said, I think that the "corruption" of English actually makes it a good starting point, since it has cognates with much of the basic vocabulary of both the Germanic and the Romance languages. Another possibility would be a language close to Proto-Indo-European such as Sanskrit. Sanskrit would offer cognates for the vocabulary of all Indo-European languages and a key to the original grammar of those languages, though on the other hand many of them have changed so much that that the cognates would be hard to recognize. Sanskrit would still be a good gateway to the many Indo-Aryan languages and to a lesser extent to the kindred Iranian languages. As for question 2), syntax is an element of grammar (which also includes areas such as morphology), so it's hard to know what you are asking. Also, it is hard to quantify or compare the complexity of different elements of grammar. It is true that Latin has very flexible syntax (though whether its syntax is more flexible than that of any other European language, I don't know). However, Latin has a relatively complex and inflexible system of morphology. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of "conlang" (constructed language) suggests the OP is already familiar with deliberately created languages like those Arika Okrent describes in her book, In the Land of Invented Languages. As she points out, many of these have a much smaller vocabulary than naturally evolved languages.

Not only do I agree with Marco Polo that it's unlikely you'll get a definitive answer, but I'd go further to say that any acceptable answer depends on what you mean by "best" and what you mean by "learned." Okrent, for example, learned enough Klingon to pass a certification exam. My hunch is that she's not holding phone conversations, much less getting ready for an extended voyage on a Klingon starship.

"Corruption" isn't a term I'd use for naturally evolved languages; incorporating and adapting words from other languages is one way they evolve. It's all relative, which means that to some extent a language is a dialect with an army and navy. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have studied, over the past seven+ years, Spanish, French, Latin, and German. Latin was, while regrettably not at all practical, it may have served me the best of any of those, because it required me to learn a lot about how a language is supposed to work. Before I studied French and Latin, I pretty much assumed that learning a second language was mostly just memorizing a list of vocabulary and putting it together. I assembled a bunch of words directly out of a French-English dictionary into a "sentence" and was very puzzled when my teacher had no clue what I was talking about. Learning Latin, because of the nature of the language, required me to be able to know darn sure what a subject was, what a direct object was, and even what things like datives, passive constructions, genitives, gerunds, gerundives, and others (the list is long) are. I learned none of those things in my "English" lessons. That meant that it was very simple to pick up another language textbook and easily understand what it was trying to tell you about the grammar of that language, if that makes any sense. I know what an accusative noun form is, so I need only to learn how to construct one in German, and not so much time learning "what the heck is this accusative." That's not to say that they are used exactly the same way, but it's close enough to get a running start. From that regard, Latin was a very good language for me, and it helps immeasurably with Romance languages. I can get meaning from many of the written Romance Languages, and I get the feeling that they would be simple to learn (I know French sure is) after learning most of the Latin grammar and a lot of Latin vocabulary. In reality, learning any second language should be a good one to learn; some will certainly be much more challenging than others, but they ALL are perfectly valid forms of communication. "Dead languages" won't help you to communicate effectively with very many people, but they certainly can help you to learn a lot about their descendants. I know this is long and rambling... I'm a little tired, and I am not doing well at being concise today. Let me know if I need to clarify anything or everything. 65.87.167.166 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC) sorry... Forgot to log in... Falconus^{p t c} 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how good you are at languages and what you want it for. A well-developed conlang like Esperanto is great if you've had trouble with languages in the past; it might help you break down the barriers that are holding you back. (Similar to the points about Latin above, but more accessible.) If you have already learned other languages, Esperanto would be child's play. If you want a language with challenging syntax, an Altaic-type language like Turkish, Japanese, or Korean would be worth checking out: you can translate from English in your head for a language like Italian, but not for those. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking a different angle, English is the best language to know for most languages, because the materials for learning other languages are usually most accessible in English. There are exceptions, of course - information on Siberian languages is primarily in Russian, and most information about Tocharian is in German. Steewi (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation help from German

In reference to this question I asked over at the Miscellaneous desk, I would require help for translating the reply I got from the German railways. I got the most of it, but here's the bit where I need help:

Für Ihre Internetbestellung wird von uns selbstverständlich der günstigste Preis ermittelt. In der Bestellmaske können Sie zudem im Feld "Wünsche an das Servicecenter" vermerken, dass Sie für die gewählte Verbindung zunächst eine unverbindliche Preisinformation haben möchten. Unser Service-Team wird Ihnen dann den entsprechenden Preis nennen und erst nach Ihrer ausdrücklichen Zustimmung die Fahrkarte ausstellen.

I think this means:

We will naturally offer you the cheapest price for your Internet booking. In the booking form you can note in the field "Wishes to the service centre" that you would like non-binding price information for the chosen connection. Our service team will then give you the corresponding price and only send the tickets with your written permission.

Have I got this right? I'm especially concerned about the middle sentence. Does unverbindlich mean that I do not commit to actually buying any tickets merely by sending a booking request? It's the similarity between the words Verbindung and unverbindlich that's throwing me off here. JIP | Talk 20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your translation is correct. German Wiktionary gives "unverbindlich" as "nicht verbindlich, ohne Festlegung" -- "not obligatory, without commitment". Besides, if receiving the price information obligated you to buy a ticket, they would not have to ask for your permission to send the tickets. Xenon54 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Your interpretation is more or less correct, though by clicking "Wünsche an das Servicecenter" you are not sending a booking request but simply a request for price information. You don't commit "zunächst". "Zunächst" wasn't translated in your version. It means "in the first instance" or "for the moment", implying they hope your request will turn into a booking request and become "verbindlich" (binding) soon. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The similarity between Verbindung and unverbindlich is basically a coincidence. Verbindung means "connection", in this case an Internet connection, while unverbindlich means "non-binding", i.e. without any obligation. The two words are etymologically related, but in this context they have nothing to do with each other. +Angr 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Two other small corrections: You have translated the last word in the passage above, ausstellen as "send", but in fact it just means "issue". Their statement does not specify whether the tickets are to be sent, or whether they will be held for you to collect at the station, or whether they will be issued in some other way. Also, they say that they will issue the tickets "erst nach Ihrer ausdrücklichen Zustimmung". This doesn't mean "only with your written permission". It just means "only with your express permission/agreement". Considering that this is an Internet transaction, your express permission or agreement might not take a "written" form; it could be the result of clicking a box with a label something like "Ich bin mit den Bedingungen einverstanden und will die Fahrkahrten zum gegebenen Preis jetzt buchen". Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

‘Verbindlich’ may be little bit strong, rather ‘Verbundlich’?

Just to mean: “Für Ihre Internetbestellung wird von uns selbstverständlich der günstigste Preis ermittelt. In der Bestellmaske können Sie Ihere Wünsche im Feld "Wünsche an das Servicecenter" vermerken, wenn Sie die gewählte Verbindung zunächst eine unverbindliche Preisinformation haben möchten. Unser Service-Team wird Ihnen dann den entsprechenden Preis nennen und erst nur nach Ihrer ausdrücklichen Zustimmung die Fahrkarte ausstellen.” -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

June 12

hair dropping on to the cheeks on female face, what's it called?

where men have whiskers women usually have a soft down sometimes dropping on to the cheeks (of course adding beauty to them). What is it called?--117.204.94.183 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

While looking at our facial hair article, I found a link in the "In women" section to vellus hair which I think answers your question. Dismas|^(talk) 09:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sentence help -- いいなか

Hi,

このごろ、ずっと、いそがしかったし、まあ、いいなか。 

This is said in response to an invitation to go on a weekend hike. I gather that the general sense is "I've been really busy just lately...", but I'm stuck on まあ、いいなか. まあ is just an exclamation, right? But what about いいなか? Is it いい + な + か? What exactly does it mean here? 86.183.171.125 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

Sure it's not a typo for いいのか？　--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, "いいかな"? --Sushiya (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, it's いいかな. Sorry about that, must need new glasses. So how would we translate that in the context of this sentence, please? 86.183.171.125 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

かな makes a supposition, "I wonder if..." or "I suppose...". In this case the whole phrase would mean "Recently I have been really busy, but well, I suppose it would be ok." --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good sentence. It would be better ja like このところ忙しかったけど、まあ、いいか"/I've been really busy lately, but it's OK. "このごろ" is a bad choice of word. Personally, it's almost incorrect. "な" is not necessarily needed.The translation of the phrase varies and depends on the context. See these. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase could be an expression of reluctance when the speaker says "まあ、いいかな" slowly or gravely and the meaning is similar to these. [7] and [8]. If spoken in a light tone, it means just OK. "Who cares?" could be used as the translation. Oda Mari (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mari, "I suppose it would be OK" also can carry that nuance of reluctance in English. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. 86.184.237.149 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

The etymology of adj. ‘analytic’ in the academic discipline of ‘analytic philosophy’

Is it the non-agglutinative component of a language that drives meaning?

It is not relating to the meaning of the analytic components of ‘analysis’ as in every other academic disciplines because a language like English, for example, is a highly non-agglutinative language to which the word orders drive the semantic and pragmatic meanings in comparison to many languages of which meaning are arrived from their synthetic components of morphology? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but in their linguistic use the words "analytic" and "agglutinative" are terms referring to the typological status of a language's morphological system, and have very little to do with semantics, and nothing to do with philosophy (as far as I can tell). For a classic exploration of basic morphological typology, you can look at Edward Sapir's 1921 book Language, which is freely available on-line... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it then not the evolution of radical pragmatism (from the synthetic components of Latin or the analytic components of proto-German) in the discourse of essence that expresses the relationship among words in a sentence by the order of words and by putting together in combination? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have very little idea what you're talking about, but whatever it is, it has almost nothing to do with linguistics. The proto-Germanic language (not "proto-German"[sic]) had a morphological typological status quite similar to that of classical Latin (not too surprising, considering that they're both older Indo-European languages). AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

phonetics help

i m confused about the usage of British [yu] , why is it replaced with [u] this confuses me a lot while i am learning to pronounce and spell. help plz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.250.73 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Without more context it is difficult to say whether this might be a reflection of grammar or due to regional dialect. Can you give us some example sentences (and any other context if relevant) in which you have encountered this? [PS: you inadvertently duplicated your question; I will delete the superfluous post.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Does our discussion of yod-dropping help at all? +Angr 17:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

her und hier

Is "her" the correct word for "towards here" in German? My spelling may be wrong. How, why, and when would you use hier and her in the same phrase/command? Fresh sunburn may be to blame, but I can't think of similar constructions in English. Maedin\^talk 20:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Trusting my knowledge of German without looking it up, "her" means "towards here" while "hier" means "at here". The only example that comes to mind immediately is "komm her und bleib hier!" JIP | Talk 21:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. How about the example I was given and the word combo hierher — "Kommen Sie hierher!"? I suppose I am confused as to why the German sees a need to distinguish the here in the same command. Wouldn't one here suffice . . . is there an ambiguous element to the adverb that I'm overlooking? Maedin\^talk 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Her" contrasts with "Hin", and appears in a number of compounds. "Hier" mainly compounds with following prepositions. According to the dictionary, "hierher" means "to here, to this point, so far"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is actually something that's been puzzling me for years. "Hier" means "at here", but then there's "her" and "hin", of which one means "to here" and the other means "from here", but I've never managed to figure out exactly when does which means which. Why is it that "hierher" means "to here" but "hineinfügen" means "bring here"? It's much easier in Finnish, where the same word ending always means the same thing. The only confusing bit is the really complicated rules about how to actually write the word ending. For example, "tänne" means "to here" but "täältä" means "from here". This is one of the countless things about Finnish grammar that I take for granted as a native speaker but feel would be hopelessly lost with were I a non-native speaker. JIP | Talk 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't help you with German much beyond what I said above, but in some circumstances the French can be fairly strict about distinctions such as amener vs. emmener vs. ramener where English speakers are often fairly loose about "bring" vs. "take"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think hineinfügen means "bring here". I think I'd translate it "insert", which is what einfügen means, and I don't think of the hin as adding much meaning. Hin basically means "away from the speaker" and her means "toward the speaker". Hierher and hierhin mean "hither" and "hence" respectively, except no one uses those words in English anymore. The distinction between hinein and herein is often lost in colloquial speech, as both get contracted to rein; likewise both hinaus and heraus get contracted to raus. +Angr 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I stilll use "hither" and "hence". "Hence" is really useful: "hither" less so. Is this like that time the English teacher told us "thus" was archaic? 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If I knew where that teacher was, I'd go thither and shew him a thynge or deuce.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm relieved to find that you're not all clicking your tongues at me and pointing out something obvious that I've missed. I think I'll abandon hierher for now and look into it later, once I'm no longer learning delightful phrases like "Where do you want to wait for me?" Thanks for your help so far! I shall probably have many more French and German questions soon, :) Maedin\^talk 07:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

June 13

What do you call this seed?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baby_kunnikulangara/2440368709/ I am not asking for the botanical name. Is there a common name for such seeds that fly in the air?--117.204.82.169 (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

They are commonly called airborne seeds, which includes winged seeds and floating seeds. (Respectively "helicopters" and "fairies" around here.) Not sure how to provide a reference for such a thing, but google will bear me out. 81.131.67.82 (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a woodsprite to me. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have heard them called "fluff" (SW Ontario) or even "dandelion fluff" (despite the fact it's obviously not a dandelion seed). I think this is going to vary a lot from place to place. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sentence -- なれ

Hi

あしたは、また、元気になれそうな気がする。　

I believe this means something like "I think I should feel better again tomorrow". Is that right? However, I don't understand なれ. Could anyone explain that to me? 86.174.166.66 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

なれ comes from なれる, which is the potential form of the verb なる - 'become, get'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. So, literally it's "...can become/get better...", right? But why does なれる become just なれ here, I wonder? 86.174.166.66 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

That is because when そう is used after a verb without the る ending (for -ru verbs, which all verbs act like when in the potential form (-eru)), the meaning is 'seems like, looks like', etc. When used after verbs with the る ending still attached, the meaning 'changes' to '[somebody] told me that...'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. I think I must have accidentally missed a page in my textbook! Thank you. 86.161.152.225 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

Is cr*p a swear word?

While I know about WP:NOTCENSORED, I feel that it's more polite to use euphemisms. When I first heard of the word cr*p, I assumed it was some kind of mild profanity. However, the CALD does not identify 'something which is not worth anything, not useful, nonsense or of bad quality' as 'offensive' (their word for vulgar), while 'solid waste, or when an animal or person produces solid waste' is tagged as 'offensive'. (I'm using the e-version.) I was surprised as 'cr*ppy' was also considered offensive, and other words, such as the s-word, are considered offensive, both the original and figurative meanings. Then, on our article about profanity, I discovered a neat paper called 'delete expletives' which says cr*p is considered swearing by a minority. It is listed under some words that I, or the CALD for that matter, consider not swearing. So is cr*p a swear word? (I'm not a native speaker.) Kayau Voting IS evil 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a mild one. If s.t. annoying happens, you might say "Oh crap!". That's milder than "Oh shit!", which you might use for s.t. truly inconvenient, or if you hurt yourself. — kwami (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But c**p[9] means exactly the same as s**t, so is considered to be on a par by many. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaning the same doesn't immediately imply the same level of offensiveness/crudeness, though. "Fuck" and "copulate" both mean the same thing, but there's a large difference between "Are those two rabbits copulating?" and "Are those two rabbits fucking?" -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To me c**p is quite a lot milder than s**t. There are many situations in which I would be happy saying c**p but would not dream of saying s**t. I'm from the UK, by the way. 86.174.166.66 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

"Crap" is allowed on U.S. broadcast television, so I really wouldn't worry about shocking people by using it. It still might be impolite in some contexts, but probably only mildly so in itself... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The way I see this, in article space, never use even a mild profanity like 'crap', except where it's part of a direct quote or the passage is literally talking about (say) dog crap - and even then, a more formal word would be preferred. in talk or administrative space, profanity is not too much of an issue unless you're using it to attack someone: e.g. 'Oh, fuck, I forgot about editing policy' is not too objectionable, while 'user X is such a fuck' should be avoided at all costs.

wp:NOTCENSORED was not written to allow people to justify using swear words (any more than the purpose of the free speech clause in the US constitution was to allow the publication of pornography); it was designed to keep people from removing encyclopedic material that some people find troubling. read wp:CIV if you want the appropriate policy that governs talk page language. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't avoid words like "crap" in the article space because they are profanities; we avoid them because they are slang. Any slang, whether a profanity or not, is inappropriate in an encyclopaedia article. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2, I am asking about real life, not WP. :) Like Tango said we avoid using these words because it's slang. My linking to WP:NOTCENSORED is not related to the question. After all this is the reference desk not the help desk. BTW, a lot of Wikipedians use swear words in the talk namespace, so although it isn't actually good it isn't prohibited. If it's too inflammatory though the user should be blocked for repeated incivility or personal attacks. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap is not a swear word. (It was, however, mildly funny that you censored it in your main post.) Swearing on-wiki makes me slightly uncomfortable (not because I'm offended, but because I know others may be) but there are times when it is, well not warranted but understandable. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 05:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, crap! well, in real life there's a tried and true, easy as pie way to tell if a word is a swear word. would you feel comfortable saying it to your mother/grandmother in casual conversation? if not, then not... --Ludwigs2 05:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You have just disproven the existence of swear words. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't SS? Perhaps it's one of those like 'God damn' or 'Christ Almighty' that only some people consider offensive. BTW, I agree with 174.24.195.56. B******t means the same as poppycock, but the latter is not a swear word. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese

What do the names Hareta and Mitsumi (the main characters in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure!) mean? Typing in Hareta gives me nothing, and typing in Mitsumi only brings up an article about an electronics company. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the Japanese Wikipedia page, the names of those characters are written in katakana. Katakana are a phonetic rendering and do not display the meaning themselves. Without kanji, the names could mean practically anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But most other Japanese names (e.g. Hikari, Sakura, etc.) have only one meaning, or possibly a few closely-related meanings. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Some do, of course, but not most, just as in English we get some names that have an actual meaning in modern English (e.g. Pearl, Rose, etc.) and many others which do not (e.g. Walter, Elizabeth, Andrew, etc.). These two names Mitsumi and Hareta may have had some significance in older stages of Japanese, though I doubt that. A number of Japanese names can be formed by combining certain syllables - 'ko', 'yo', and 'mi', for example, can be used at the end of girls' names. 'Mitsu' can be used in the main stem of a name (both male and female), so 'Mitsuko', 'Mitsuyo', and 'Mitsumi' are all girls' names in Japanese (and you will find names like 'Yoshimitsu', 'Hidemitsu', and 'Mitsuo' for men). The actual meaning of the syllable 'mitsu' will vary from name to name, and will largely depend on the kanji. If there is no kanji, then the meaning is lost (or didn't exist to begin with). As for your assertion that 'most other Japanese names (e.g. Hikari, Sakura, etc.) have only one meaning, or possibly a few closely-related meanings ', you are misunderstanding the naming conventions in Japan. A name such as 'Megumi' can be written as 恵 (Blessing),　恵美 (Blessing & Beauty),　愛実 (Love & Truth),　愛美 (Love & Beauty), or　萌 (Flower Bud), or in other ways. All of these written forms have exactly the same pronunciation but different 'meanings'. Then there is the problem of ateji, which are kanji used in a name to indicate either the pronunciation or the meaning, but not both. In any case, Mitsumi and Hareta do not exist as stand-alone words in Japanese (except that 'hareta' is the past tense of the verb 'hareru' - 'to clear up/be clear' (as in weather)). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgen

If morgen is German for both morning and tomorrow, how would you express "tomorrow morning"? Maedin\^talk 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgen früh for the early morning, morgen Vormittag for the later morning. The border between them is around 9 AM or so. +Angr 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You also occasionally hear "morgen am morgen" Rimush (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In Spanish, where "mañana" means "morning" as well as "tomorrow", "mañana por la mañana" means "tomorrow morning". (wikt:mañana)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks very much, all three, :) Maedin\^talk 19:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding

Let's say that we have a document that goes along the lines of something like this:

1. Statement A holds true.
2. Statement B holds true.
3. Statement C holds true.
4. Notwithstanding the above, Statement D holds true.

My understanding is that Statement D somehow seems contradictory to (or prevented by) Statements A, B, and C. But, nonetheless, despite the seeming contradiction or disharmony, Statement D still holds true. So Line 4 above might be paraphrased as: "Statement D still holds true, despite the fact that A, B, and C exist and are seemingly contradictory." Is my understanding correct? If my understanding is correct, I have a follow-up question. If not, my follow-up question is moot. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

It is apparently contradictory. You're initially led to believe that A is always a true statement, but down the track you realise it isn't always true because D overrides it. Better to have been forewarned that there are some circumstances where A is not true. A more clearly written document would say things like "Statement A/B/C holds true, subject to Statement D". Then simply, "Statement D holds true". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of ‘notwithstanding’ as preposition, rather than as an adverb, is an instance of a necessary connection if the statements A, B, C, and D are propositions; rather than a contradiction in which the two concepts are merely connected is that the sense of one concept is contained in that of the other?

Like in these statements:

A: X is a teacher.

B: X is an adviser.

C: X is an activist.

D: Notwithstanding the above, X does x,y, and z things. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite following bitpart and Jack. the 'notwithstanding' in this kind of case simply means "despite all of those, the following is true". thus: "Jill is opinionated, Jill is rude, Jill is loud. Notwithstanding all that, you should listen to her." it doesn't have to be contradictory or paradoxical, it just needs to recognize a presupposition about Jill that one might make hearing the first statements, and then dispute that presupposition as false. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Very true, Ludwigs2. I was thinking of a more limited example. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean that ’notwithstanding’ is irrelevant in the context where the statements are paradoxical as oppose to where statements are in contradiction? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

no. it's all about presumptions. a paradox is just a set of seemingly true statements that lead one to an irrational conclusion. then it would make sense to say 'notwithstanding the statements, this more rational conclusion is correct'. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input above. I guess that I was thinking of statements that are more along the lines of "rules" or conditionals or such, telling us what course of action an individual must take. For example, let's say that two friends make a bet:

1: If it rains tomorrow, you owe me $50.
2: If it snows tomorrow, you owe me $100.
3: If it's sunny tomorrow, you owe me $500.
4: Notwithstanding the above, if we have a tornado tomorrow, you owe me $1000.

Can someone please explain / paraphrase exactly what statement 4 means? I am not quite sure how to read it, in context of the other three statements. I don't know what to make of the "notwithstanding" word in examples such as this (setting conditions or rules). Thank you very much! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

That's an odd use of the word, I think, but I would interpret it as meaning that if there is a tornado I owe you exactly $1000, regardless of the rest of the weather. Without the "notwithstanding the above" bit, if there were a tornado and some snow, I'd owe you $1100. --Tango (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is bit odd as to its convention that provides a kind of anchor or a court of appeal on the question of standards and appropriateness that apply to the norms on specific writing versus to those of simple spoken utterances. But for an elaboration, I guess there is nothing wrong with that. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question

Thanks for the above replies. So, here is my follow-up question ... which was the source of my confusion ... and which prompted my original question. Please take a look at my example above -- the example with the rain, snow, sun, and tornado scenarios. Would we say that conditions 1, 2, and 3 withstand condition 4? Or would we say that condition 4 withstands conditions 1, 2, and 3? This is why I was originally confused about the term "notwithstanding" to begin with. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

No, I don't think that use is standard. Each of the four items is pretty much the same kind of deal, so there's no need to use a notwithstanding in there. Ludwigs has the right idea; the "notwithstanding" serves to reassure the reader/hearer that all the items, however odd they sound together, are all held to be true by the speaker. It's kind of like a (sic) at the end of a quote that could be misinterpreted as having a typo. Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation into Italian

I would be very grateful if someone could translate the following for me into good clear Italian (i.e. not the dodgy kind I can cobble together with the help of an online translator!)

"Sorry, but this booking was made in error, and I want to cancel it. I understand that the deposit is not refundable. Please email me to confirm that the booking has been cancelled. Thank you, and my apologies for the mistake."

Thanks folks - Karenjc 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Chiedo scusa, ma questa prenotazione è stata fatta per sbaglio e vorrei cancellarla. Comprendo che la caparra non è rimborsabile. Per cortesia, mandatemi un'email per confermare che la prenotazione è stata cancellata. Grazie e chiedo scusa per l'errore". From a native speaker. :-)--151.51.13.201 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed. Much appreciated - thanks again. - Karenjc 12:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Was a former"

I just read an article about a former football player who has died. The article says he "was a former football player". Isn't he still a former football player? Or is the original wording correct? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it's a bit redundant, but not too far outside the parameters of normal speech (and certainly not out side the parameters of normal sports journalism material, which has a long history of misapplications of language) ""is a former football player" and ""was a former football player" would be largely interchangeable in common usage. The first would be more common when speaking about someone alive - in that case 'former' would be a euphemism for 'retired' or 'from before your time' - and the phrasing would be most commonly used with an 'and' like "...is a former football player and team coach". --Ludwigs2 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This often happens in encyclopedia articles when a living subject dies. While they're alive, if they're retired it's correct to say "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player". The moment they die, it's not just a case of adjusting the tense of the verb 'to be' from "is" to "was". Our whole perspective on Joe changes, from someone who's a retired player, to someone who was notable during his life for playing football. The lede should then change from "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player" to "Joe Bloggs was an Albanian football player", but sometimes editors, in their haste to report that Joe is now dead, omit to attend to all the fine points. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jack, reading that sentence just now - "Joe Bloggs was an Albanian football player" - gave me the impression that he still was one when he died and that he hadn't retired. 'Was a former football player' sounds better to me, because he was one (i.e. a former football player) when he died. However, 'is a former football player' sounds strange because he no longer 'is' anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Apply your argument to real people who left their most important office/occupation well before they died. Would we say "Ronald Reagan was a former U.S. President ..." or "Ronald Reagan was the U.S. President 1981-89 ..."? Answer: the latter. He died in 2004, 15 years after leaving the White House. During those 15 years, it would have been correct to say "he is a former president". In a chronological sense, he remains a former president, so it's not wrong to continue to refer to him as such, but not with the past tense of "to be'. Because "he was a former president" would be true only of the years 1989-2004, the autumn of his life, whereas our post-mortem interest in him is what he did in the spring and summer of his life. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you shortchanging Ronnie his winter? That makes me so discontent. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Was a former" would only be coherent when speaking of someone's retirement years, after they've died or for a specific event in the past: "He was one of several former players to participate in ..." — kwami (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that we shouldn't say "was a former" either of someone alive ("is a former") or of someone dead ("was a") except under special circumstances. However, I also wouldn't say "Joe Bloggs is a former Albanian football player" if he's still Albanian (Xho Blogz, perhaps?) but "Joe Bloggs is an Albanian former football player" or "Joe Bloggs is a former football player from Albania". Unless, of course, there's a variety of football called Albanian football (cf. American football, Canadian football, and Australian football). +Angr 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If there isn't, there should be. I can't wait to attend the inaugural Albanian Football World Cup. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning, Angr, and in principle I agree with it. But it's not really necessary to make that distinction, because if the subject is no longer Albanian, it would be necessary to state what their nationality/citizenship now is, but since no alternative has been stated, we can safely assume the "former" refers only to their football playing activities, and not to their nationality. Cf. "Yusuf Bloxha is a retired Albanian chicken sexer" - nobody would read this to mean that he's no longer an Albanian, just no longer a chicken sexer. Same with "former". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

June 14

The phonetic transcription /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbə/ (Manitoba)

It does not seem correct. Anyone wants to check this in WP? -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. I can also imagine hearing /ˌmænɪˈtobə/. The second vowel comes out in various ways in my head and I'm not sure what it should be; /ˌmænɨˈtoʊbə/ and /ˌmænəˈtoʊbə/ also seem possible (or /ˌmænɨˈtobə/ and /ˌmænəˈtobə/). But I am no linguist so maybe I am wrong. What seemed incorrect to you? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to delete this post, but your post came in. Now I have to answer. I have to listen to some native speakers about this carefully because the ending has so far not been like of the schwa, which is little bit weak but then the long ‘a’ also seems little bit strong to my ears. The stresses seem alright, but the first ‘a’ also seem something like of a Canadian specific (not of the RP). -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The schwa sounds right to me; I would pronounce "-toba" the same way I pronounce "sofa", for example. it is a little longer than the schwa in the middle, but I think that is just because there is nothing else after it. The /æ/ also sounds right. It is the same vowel as in the word "man", anyway. (I'm Canadian, by the way, although I'm not from Manitoba.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbə/ is how an American would say it, and /ˌmænɪˈtoʊbʌ/ is how I as a Canadian say it (the last vowel is not quite a schwa). 220.29.16.77 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we're going with the Wikipedia IPA transcription scheme, I'd go with /ˌmænɨˈtoʊbə/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see and hear http://www.forvo.com/search/Manitoba/. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it literally impossible to believe that there's a significant difference between the American and the Canadian pronunciation of the final vowel of this word. +Angr 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the World has /ˌmænɪˈtəʊbə/. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds rather British...there is definitely a rounded vowel in there when I say it. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the majority of Manitobans pronounce 'Manitoba' the same way as in Wavelength’s attached link. So it seems to me that the first ‘a’ is simply /a/, rather than the /æ/ as in ‘bad’. The schwa seems correct for the second ‘a’ on Canada if the first ‘a’ is pronounced with /æ/, but for 'Manitoba', it seems to me that it is not a schwa if the previous vowel is not too enlonged. -Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 220; the final vowel is not a schwa sound, but more like the ʌ sound. I don't know how American versus Canadian pronunciation would play into it, unless you just assume that Americans always pronounce stuff incorrectly :-). Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it seems like you Canadians have an especially open allophone of unstressed schwa in certain positions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Matt, are you saying it does not have the vowels of "soda"? — kwami (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's close, but not quite. I would say that the second vowel is more like ə - the ɪ would only be used if you were carefully enunciating. Matt Deres (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's my urban southern/southwestern Ontario accent, but I can't imagine pronouncing Manitoba in the ways that are being described... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Unusual use of "The" for a German speaker of English

My middle-aged neighbour speaks pretty much perfect English (she has lived in Australia since the early 70s). However, she does have a few odd turns of phrase. One that I find the most interesting is her use of the word "the". She has a dog, whose name is Lisa. She invariably refers to the dog as "the Lisa". For example, "I am going to take the Lisa for a walk". Her elderly mother (whom we all call oma) gets referred to as "the oma". As in, "I had to take the oma to the doctor yesterday". Just a note, she doesn't do it all the time. Just say her sister's name is Jane, she will never say "I went to visit the Jane yesterday". Is this a common thing among German speakers, or is it just her way of speaking. Thanks everyone!!! 121.44.83.127 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that it is normal to use an article before someone's name in German. There's actually an ongoing discussion at the how-to-learn-any-language.com forums on this topic. See: [10]. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This subject has come up on this desk before as well, see the discussion here. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Translate short Latin passage

My Latin is too dreadful for translation, despite the four years it made up part of my school schedule! Would someone be willing to translate a short passage for me, please? It is from a page in a public domain work, [11], about Trier and the history of Saint Paulin Church. I've copied it below:

Ursiniano subdiacono sub hoc tumulo ossa

Quiescunt qui meruit sanctorum sociari sepulcris,

Quem nec Tartarus furens nec saeva poena nocebit

Hunc titulum posuit Ludula dulcissima conux.

R.(maybe a B?) V. K. D. Vixit annis XXXIII

I realise the German translation is available below the Latin, but the Fraktur is harder to read at that size and my translation ended up garbled, anyway. Thanks! I wouldn't dare submit my attempt, so I leave it to others, :) Maedin\^talk 12:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Under this tumulus rest the bones of subdiacon Ursinianus, who deserved to rest among the saints, who is not hurt by hell's fury nor by grave punishment. This inscription was made by his sweetest wife Ludula. Died 5 days before the calends of December, lived 33 years. (translated mostly from the German text, my Latin is quite rusty) -- Ferkelparade π 12:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Small point: Nocebit is the future tense, so "whom neither raging hell nor savage punishment will harm". Also, note the spelling of conjux. Deor (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both, that's just what I needed. Sorry about the typo, typing Latin isn't my forte, ;-) Maedin\^talk 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Subdiacon" should also be subdeacon. Also, if you want to keep the sense of the dative in the first line, it actually says that his wife Ludula "made this inscription for Ursianus, whose bones rest under this tomb." (Ferkelparade's translation is much more sensible though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Tumulus is probably more literal (judging by the German?) but would tomb be more appropriate? Maedin\^talk 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

German pronunciation of s and ess-tsett

Is there any difference in pronunciation between the German for 'he is' (er ist) and 'he eats' (er ißt)? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. They're complete homophones. (But "he eats" has been spelled er isst, not er ißt, for more than 10 years now.) +Angr 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, in colloquial German, at least in the South, "er ist" is usualy shortened to "er is". The Standard German pronounciation is identical to "er isst", as Angr says -- Ferkelparade π 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You get that colloquially in the North too. In the South, that reduction would only be found in the Southeast (Bavaria and Austria), as in the Alemannic-influenced Southwest (Baden, Swabia, Switzerland), it's "er isch". I'm not sure whether er isst is pronounced "er ischt" in the Southwest, but I'd expect so. +Angr 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On a similar vein, in the Rammstein song Du hast, there is some ambiguity between whether the singer means 'du hast mich' ('you have me') or 'du haßt mich' ('you hate me'). Here, as in the above examples, the 's' and 'ß' are pronounced the same. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

'du haßt mich' is spelled 'du hasst mich' after the last spelling reform, 'ß' only follows long vowels Rimush (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese "probable" mood

Are there any rules about when verb forms like 行こう express probability and when they express volition? For example, in one place I've seen 行こう translated as "I will probably go", yet in another place 田中さんが行くから僕も行こう　is translated as "Since Mr Tanaka is going, I'll go too." How do we know it doesn't mean "I'll probably go too"? Or can it? 86.173.171.125 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Ambiguity of “Mitsubishi car”

Why is the term “Mitsubishi car” ambiguous? --84.62.217.198 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation for "Only" a regional thing?

I was stunned when looking at a dictionary and seeing that only was pronounced - or supposed to be pronounced - with the "-ly" at the second syllable, and he "on-" like it came from "alone," as ur article on only seems to suggest. But, growing up, I don't remember anyone ever saying it like that - I always heard it said as "olny."

have I discovered one of the key elements in an Ohio accent , or is this actually the normal way to say it? Or, is it a U.S. way? (I suppose it could be like many people used to say "nuclear" as "nucular," but I always said "nuclear" and many people I know did, too.)