Language desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 10[edit]

Does Japanese text name plant?[edit]

Can someone who reads Japanese advise if the plant is identified? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just has some descriptions of various parts of the plant, such as colour, etc. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific as to color? Is the flower described as aoi or more specifically?

It actually says 'murasaki', which means 'purple', not 'blue'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please translate it word for word Paul venter (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but to be honest, it's calligraphic writing, and small, and hard to read. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally identified as Papaver somniferum var paeoniflorum Paul venter (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Since biblical times" - literal or metaphorical?[edit]

I was reading this page by PubMed, and saw this one-liner that caught my attention: "Leprosy is a disease that has been known since biblical times". First of all, is "biblical times" an actual time period in history? If so, does that imply people of other nations that do not know the Bible know no concept of this disease? I do recognize that leprosy is written or mentioned in the Bible, so that implies that during the time it was written, people had contact with leprosy. However, just because something is written or mentioned in the Bible does not necessarily mean that it does not exist prior to the written word of the Bible. Human prehistory is far longer than human history, unless leprosy is a relatively new disease that first appeared and infected humans "during Biblical times". I think the author means, in other words, that "Leprosy is a disease that has always been known in recorded human history." Still, I am wondering whether "since biblical times" means the time period between the supposed biblical creation story and the contemporary setting (time and place) of the chronologically last written book of the Bible, or it may mean "since ancient days". Oh, am I just asking a largely opinionated question that depends on context? How do I know and understand what context this PubMed article is using? Did biblical times end with the deaths of all the apostles? 140.254.226.239 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading far too much into the phrase. It simply alludes to leprosy being mentioned in the Bible, so it's been around since whenever (some part of) the Bible was written -- which of course does not date the reference very precisely. The author is not trying to pin down the date, just adducing evidence that it's been around for a while. -- Elphion (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll take that as 'metaphorical'. Thanks. It's been bugging me for a while. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in normal idiomatic English, the phrase "since Biblical times" implies a minimum period of time during which the disease has been known: i.e., since the disease was described in one or more of the books of the Bible; and at all times since then. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say it's literal, not metaphorical -- just not very precise. -- Elphion (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's just refering to the time period covered by the Bible, roughly 1000 BC - 100 AD or so. A big time span, yes, but calling something "Biblical times" just means dating it to that time period, not just to the Levant and Egypt and Mesopotamia. Something occuring in China in 500 BC could be accurately described as "during Biblical times", though it wouldn't be often said that way. But it wouldn't be wrong in any way. --Jayron32 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The writer could just as well have written "It's mentioned in the Bible, so we know it's been around since at least that long ago". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I learned before that Isaac Newton used the Bible to date the age of the earth. Back then, he presumably thought the Bible was an "accurate" source for truth, so he used the Bible to approximate the age of the earth, which arrived at roughly 6000 years. In that case, would "biblical times" be anywhere from 6000 years ago to the first century AD? 140.254.226.239 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends again on how you define your terms. The "traditional narrative" of the bible is taken to mean by some people in some traditions that the Bible positively and unequivocally dates the Creation to 4004 BC. That's not what I would call a universally accepted interpretation. Instead, if you consider the Bible to be a historical text on the Hebrew nation, you can date certain events into their historical context from other sources, and come up with a rough timeline of events in the bible, especially in the stories after the Pentateuch and Joshua (fitting the chronology of Genesis in with the rest of the Hebrew bible is somewhat problematic, and supporting evidence for the Hebrew nation in Egypt or the events of the Exodus is similarly lacking). However, starting with the period of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), the dates become easier to verify in concrete terms and with reliable support from archeological and secondary historical sources, and that dates from around 1000 BC. You could probably extrapolate, therefore, that the period of the Book of Judges to be the 300 or so years before that. So, 1000 BC is a very rough estimate, but it is probably close enough to the actual time when the Hebrew people coalesced into a distinct nation apart from other Levantine peoples. --Jayron32 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean by 'nation' that they had a king then ok, but Israel as a people is already (likely) mentioned in the late 13th century BC by pharaoh Merneptah. - Lindert (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out those two webpages, and it looks like the Book of Judges is said to be written by divinely inspired judges. What does it mean? I do not know. However, it appears that people in the past were so religious back then that religion became real, and they could not distinguish actual reality from what they perceived as reality during that time. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are old earth creationism and young earth creationism.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It was James Ussher, a 17^th century Archbishop of Armagh who made the calculation of 4004 B.C. being the date of creation. Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly not the only one who used the Bible to date the age of the Earth. Modern people would probably scratch their heads why they would rely on a religious text. One may infer that those people probably thought that the Bible told the truth about the world, and trusted that the Bible could accurately tell people about the world. Isaac Newton, as shown here, is another. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would earlier people: it's very much Enlightenment Era thinking to take a religious and poetic text and calculate a rigid, measurable timeline from it. It makes me imagine him taking a ruler to the Hereford Mappa Mundi, and thus 'determining' where places are. He'd probably think it showed a flat Earth. 86.159.77.170 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This press release from the Pasteur Institute says "Ancient texts describe the presence of leprosy in China, India and Egypt around 600 B.C." Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is more clear than "since biblical times"! 140.254.226.239 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there's actually some doubt whether what is translated as "leprosy" in the KJV (i.e. Hebrew צרעת) is the same as Hansen's disease as known today (see Tzaraath#Interpretations)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than doubt... The description of tzara'at in Lev 13-14 isn't the least bit similar to Hansen's disease. (It sounds more like psychosomatically caused vitilgo or psoriasis, but that's a tangent.) KJV took the Septuagint's λέπρα and utilized the nearest English word, leprosy. micha (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leprosy is also mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, although it likewise may not be Hansen's disease. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can these words be used interchangeably? (churchgoer, church member, parishioner, etc.)[edit]

Emily is a parishioner.
Emily is a churchgoer.
Emily is a church member.
Emily is a church attendant.
Emily is a church attendee.
Emily is a disciple.
Emily is a follower.
Emily is an apostle.
Emily is a member of the parish.
Emily is a parish member.
Emily is affiliated with the church.
Emily is a [insert religion or religous denomination here].

So many words. They all seem to describe the same thing to me! 140.254.226.239 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all -- most have different connotations, depending on the denomination. A churchgoer need not be a member of (or even affiliated with) any church. Most liberal denominations don't have disciples, followers, or apostles. A church need not have an associated parish (geographical area), so even members are not necessarily parishioners. -- Elphion (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, "attendant" seems wrong here, more like somebody who attends to the details of church services, like turning the lights and heat on, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, they are all distinct. Many churches have formal membership requirements that are distinct from the right to attend. You can go to a church for many years and never have followed the specific steps required to apply for and receive membership. Also, some of these terms are specific to certain denominations or used differently depending on the denomination. Let me try to define them as I best understand them.

A "parishioner" is a member of a "parish"; a parish is a specific sort of territorial designation in Catholicism, for example, but unknown as a designation in many other denominations. Thus, a full member of a Catholic Church can be described as a Parishioner, but not one of a Baptist Church.
A churchgoer is someone that physically shows up at church on a regular basis. A person doesn't need to belong to the church to attend it, nor do they even, strictly, have to be a believer.
A church member, as noted, is someone that has gone through the formal process to "join" the church. Anyone can attend the church, but certain activities involving the governance of the church are often restricted to members. For example, Baptist churches are governed by a form of direct democracy where all decisions are voted on by the Church Membership. The right to vote in Church Council (or whatever the local name is) and to serve on Church Committees is restricted to members of the church, and not just to "churchgoers".
Attendant and attendee are synonyms, and their both equivalent to "churchgoer".
A follower, disciple, and apostle are specifically usually reserved for earnest believers in Christianity. Strictly speaking, one does not have to regularly attend a specific church to be a "follower" or "disciple", nor does one need to be a member. Those terms may be reappropriated in some specific congregations or denominations to refer to certain levels of "membership", but in most cases they just mean "a practicing Christian".
Parish member is equivalent to parishioner: a full member of a church organized into parishes.
"Affiliated with" is very vague, and could mean anything. Some people attend a church and never become a member. Some people establish a membership with one church, but don't specifically attend it (for example, they may have been regular attenders and members, but attend a different church, stop attending for personal reasons, or even are involved in missionary work and so don't live near their "home church"). It could also just mean the same thing as "attends the church". Almost impossible to distinguish without context.

I hope all that makes sense. --Jayron32 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what does it mean that Phillip Pirrup from Great Expectations has a father who is "late of this parish" and a mother who is "wife of the above"? Why would someone attend church when that person is not a believer in the first place? What does that say about statistics that record # of Christians based on church attendance? What about the # of Christians who do not attend church but worship privately in their own homes in fear of religious persecution in their particular geographic location?140.254.226.239 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pip's parents are buried in an Anglican graveyard. "Late of this parish" just means "used to live in the area associated with this church". It makes no claim as to his belonging to the church. (One of Graham Oakley's 'Church Mice' books includes, as a visual gag, a memorial tablet to one 'Richard Turpin... late of this parish, who departed this life suddenly at Tyburn'.)

People's attendance at church is dictated partly by belief, and partly by other social conventions. Many more people attend for Christmas and Easter, and for family events such as baptisms, weddings and funerals, than attend Sunday by Sunday. The specific reasons depend in a trivial sense on the individual's own preferences and experiences, and in a less trivial sense on the denomination involved.

Anglicanism, at least, is a faith which one participates in as much as believes in. Although reciting the creed is a part of worship, it's immediately apparent in most congregations that it is the act of being present and sharing both the symbolic meal of Holy Communion, and the actual meal of tea and biscuits afterwards, with one's fellow congregants, that is the focal element of the faith. It's not a philosophy class; it's a community.

It's widely known that about 1 million Anglicans and 1 million Catholics in the UK attend church week by week. (About 1 million Muslims go to Mosque on a Friday, too.) But vastly more go at Christmas. And more than half the population puts down 'Church of England' or an equivalent term on their census returns and the like. Attendance is arguably a better measure of active participation in the faith than simply what is recorded in surveys.

Private worship in time of persecution is harder to get statistics on. It also arguably changes the political and communal character of worship. If praying together is a sign of resistance against oppression, that factor will enter into people's decision to participate or abstain. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Civil parishes in England. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I'm going to disagree with Jayron here - or at least, provide different answers, from my Anglican perspective:

Emily is a parishioner. - She lives in the parish, which is a geographical area. Would need to be qualified, implicitly or explicitly, with the name of the parish. This would be the dedication and location of the parish's main church - e.g. "a parishioner of St Muriel's, Little Whinging", or whatever. Used without qualification, it would mean the parish associated with a church, priest, or official already under discussion.

Emily is a churchgoer. - She attends a church (not necessarily of any specific denomination) on at least a semi-regular basis.

Emily is a church member. - She is at least one of: (a) a very regular attendee, an integral member of the church as community (b) a confirmed member of the denomination, and thus a communicant member of the wider church body or (c) a member of the electoral roll, and thus a member of the church for political purposes.

Emily is a church attendant. - Technically the same as the next, but would generally be understood to mean that she is either a sidesman (a volunteer who assists by giving out prayer books before services, takes the collection, and so on) or a verger (a paid employee who cleans and maintains the building).

Emily is a church attendee. - Same as 'churchgoer' above.

Emily is a disciple. - Not normally used. "The disciples", without qualification, tends to mean the people who followed Jesus during his earthly life. If Emily is a disciple of some named person (probably a priest or philosopher) it would mean she followed that person's teaching, without necessarily attending their church.

Emily is a follower. - Not normally used, but could refer to following a philosophy or style of churchmanship.

Emily is an apostle. - Not normally used. "The apostles" normally means Jesus' closest 12 followers, plus St Matthias (who was elected to replace Judas Iscariot), St Paul (who was 'the last apostle', 'the apostle to the gentiles'), and St Mary Magdalene (called 'the apostle to the apostles' for her role in the resurrection story. If Emily is described as an apostle of something or someone, it might mean she was an especially zealous, vigorous or inspired promoter of that thing.

Emily is a member of the parish. - Ambiguous. Might mean 'parishioner', might mean any of th meanings under 'church member'.

Emily is a parish member. - As above.

Emily is affiliated with the church. - She goes to the church in question to worship or for other purposes, and might be on the electoral role. She might or might not also do those things somewhere else as well.

Emily is a [insert religion or religous denomination here]. - "...Christian" = she believes in at least a basic Christian creed. "...Anglican" = when she worships, she does so in the Church of England. "...Catholic" = was brought up in the (Roman) Catholic church, and if she goes anywhere, she goes there.

AlexTiefling (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, if Emily is affiliated with the Church of Denmark, then she would be considered a "...Danish". She would be brought up in the Church of Denmark, or "Danish Christian". 140.254.226.239 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...Danish Christian" just implies 'both Danish and Christian', without comment as to the denomination. I'd tend to describe a member of the Church of Denmark as a "Danish Lutheran". Certainly when I describe members of the Church of Sweden as "Swedish Lutherans", no-one seems confused. I am sure this is somewhat unfair to members of non-established Lutheran free churches in Scandinavia, but this sort of question arises in contexts where 'Episcopalian', 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' are used with too little or too much specificity, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parish member and parishioner are exact synonyms. Church attendant and church attendee are exact synonyms, and close enough to church goer that the latter would in most cases be an exact synonym, although attendant usually refers to a specific church she attends, while goer may mean she shops around. None of the before terms and none of the unmentioned terms means the same thing, see above. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To re-emphasise: in the Anglican context, being a parishioner does not imply being a church member. The entire country is divided into Anglican parishes, and everyone is therefore a parishioner of some parish. As the Church of England is a state church, this matters, because you have a right to be married (unless some other factor prevents it) in your own parish church. 'Parish member' sits awkwardly in this context, and would not normally be used, but definitely implies some level of participation, which 'parishioner' does not. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask - is the attendant/attendee correlation maybe a US/Canadian English thing? In British English "attendant" and "attendee" generally have distinct and different meanings. "Attendant" is a noun implying some kind of official position - you might have a cloakroom attendant at a theatre or restaurant, or a petrol pump attendant in a filling station where there is no self service - and it is also an adjective meaning "concomitant". "Attendee", on the other hand, is someone who attends something. I see dictionary definitions that combine the two, but I've never heard the latter in place of the former in actual usage. We also have "attender", which means the same as "attendee". - Ka renjc 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the above are interchangeable, depending on the context. (also, communicant). But the Dickens example looks, from the bit that was given, to be referring to where the man had lived. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that "attendant" has a different meaning, as in a "gas station attendant". That doesn't mean anybody who shows up at the gas station, it means somebody who works there. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would likely know from context, whether Emily has some church job or she just attends church. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stu here. An attendant is someone who attends to things, meaning they have some official function to perform in the running of the event. People who simply attend events are spectators or members of the audience or the congregation. They could be called attendees. Attendants provide services to attendees. Both attendees and attendants are in attendance. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the writer, it's doubtful language need be that rigid. Of course, "attendant" in church contexts is perhaps most often used with respect to weddings, but it's doubtful that Emily is a wedding attendant, otherwise that more usual phrase is what likely would have been written. Perhaps, if a writer wants to convey that Emily is comparatively serious about churchgoing, she might consider that word form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all dickering over some of rather small difference here. The bigger point that needs to be made is of three or four overlapping ideas.

Terms which refer to attendance of church (showing up and sitting through worship service)
Terms which refer to membership of a church (which allows certain privileges not available to people who just show up: In some denominations, the right to take communion is contingent on membership, in other the right to participate in church governance, etc. etc.)
Terms which refer to belief in the tenets of Christianity (which are not necessarily identical between denominations, and which also are not necessarily completely overlapping with other categories)
Terms which refer to geographic organization of the church structure (for some denominations, people are assigned to a "home church" based on where they live.)

Every different Christian denomination is going to have a different take on these issues, so they're going to use different terms, different words, and sometimes what means one thing in one church means something different in another. But, broadly speaking, most denominations would recognize distinctions between beliefs, attendance, and membership. --Jayron32 01:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attendant can mean both someone serving a function and simply one who is present.[1] In the one sense it is synonymous with attendee as stated, in the other it is different in meaning from all the rest. I am a little surprised at suggestions that language need not be very specific. These words all have well definable meanings in their contexts and except for the parish- and sometimes the attend- ones cannot simply be interchanged. Is there some specific ontext here? Because otherwise this question is just an invitation to debate and for a forum, not here. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]