Language desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

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.

December 3[edit]

Some better word[edit]

In the sentence- "His essay Russkoe Vostochnoe Soglashenie (Russian Oriental Relations) emphasized not only agreement between and understanding of one another by Russians and Muslims but an actual drawing close together–sblizhenie," is the phrase "drawing close together" correct, or can you suggest some better word choice or interpretation for/of the word 'sblizhenie.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.40.58 (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonding ? Rapprochement ? StuRat (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as[edit]

I have some confusion regarding the verb to use with "as well as." As far as I know, in the sentence "This possibility as well as the previous topics is in need of systematic investigation" the verb should be singular but my senior seems to think otherwise. If I am correct, then please cite some reliable source by which I can defend my decision. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.40.58 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a plural subject, so it's "are", not "is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it's kind of mangled English. With "are" instead of "is", it's not wrong but it's inelegant and would not be written by a native speaker. You don't really need to split them up like that, you could just define the topics/possibilities in the previous sentence and then say "These topics need to be systematically investigated" or something. --Viennese Waltz 14:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bugs, but most style guides I'm familiar with call for a singular is in this construction (although I would set off "as well as the previous topics" with commas). See my comments—particulary the quotation from Words into Type—as well as the rest of the thread, at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 1#More subject / verb. Deor (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commas change the construction. As written, "as well as" equates to "and", making it a plural subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're just being silly now, I fear. Deor (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it wrong. "This and that" ARE, not IS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, uncle. I tried the original sentence in Word, then switched it to "are", and it wants me to change it back to "is". It still doesn't seem right, though. Awkward wording. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, technically, the verb should be is, but this sounds so wrong to a native speaker's ears that the sentence should be rewritten, maybe something like "Both this possibility and the issues already discussed need systematic investigation", though even this is less than elegant. I'd need to know the context to suggest something smoother. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bugs. In this case, as well as is being used as "and", and the plural verb is necesary. If the phrase were a parenthetical one set off by commas or parentheses the singular verb would apply. But it isn't, so it doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as is logically equivalent to but grammatically distinct from and and doesn't change the number of the original subject. It doesn't matter whether the writer remembers to include commas or not: the very nature of the phrase creates a parenthetical. It's is, but (as stated above) the whole thing is just unpleasant to look at and should be reworded with an and or rephrasing. —

Llywelyn II

23:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get that rationale, but I don't buy it. If you pause vocally, is sounds fine. If you don't pause, are is the only natural alternative. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit Translation[edit]

Hi I would really love to get a reliable English to Sanskrit translation for this Rumi quote: Put your thoughts to sleep. Do not let them cast a shadow over the moon of your heart. Let go of thinking Thanks! 41.222.8.161 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll get the response you want, but I will warn you that this desk is weak on South Asian languages. Marco polo (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the folks at WP:IND can help you with your request. Such a gentleman 19:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Latin title page[edit]

Hello, I'd love some help understanding the following Latin text from the title page of a book:

Radulphi / de / HENGHAM / Edwardi Regis I. / Capitalis olim Juſtitiarii / Summæ.

Magna Hengham, & Parva, Vul- / gò nuncupatæ nunc primùm ex / vet. Codd. Mſſ in lucem prodeunt.

Londini Biblioplarum Corpori execu- / ditur. M. DC. XVI.

The virgules represent line breaks. The book is by Sir Ralph de Hengham and consists of two texts, the Hengham Magna (Great Hengham) and the Hengham Parva (Small Hengham), but it appears the book as a whole is also called the Summæ though I don't know what this means because Google Translate suggests this means "final" or "supreme". Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a go. The translation is something like "Collected Works of Ralph de Hengham, formerly Chief Justice of King Edward I, commonly named Hengham Magna and Parva, now for the first time brought to light from the ancient manuscripts. London. Published by the Printers' Company, 1616". "Hengham magna" and "Hengham parva" are the (Latin) names of collections of lectures on legal matters written by Hengham. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ah, so vet. is vetus ("old") and Codd. is the plural of cōdex – what word would that be? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codices (although the syntax of the title would require ablative codicibus if it were spelled out). Deor (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked up Wiktionary but it gives the plural forms as cōdicēs (nominative and accusative), cōdicum (genitive and ablative), and cōdicibus (dative and vocative), and none of that makes any sense to me! — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misread, I think: The Wiktionary table gives the plurals as cōdicēs (nominative, accusative, and vocative), cōdicum (genitive), and cōdicibus (dative and ablative). But the English plural you would use in translating the title would be codices, if that's what you meant. Deor (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. No, I meant the plural form of the Latin word. And would Mſſ thus be manuscrīptīs (ablative, according to Wiktionary)? Does vetus codicibus manuscrīptīs mean "ancient books of manuscripts"? Fascinating stuff. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, vetus has to be ablative plural as well to agree with the objects of ex, so it would be ex veteribus codicibus manuscriptis. I'd render it as "from old handwritten codices" or the like. Deor (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title is quoted here with vett., hence it is vetustissimis (oldest). Note also Bibliopolarum and excuditur. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were right about the typos in Bibliopolarum and excuditur but the version of Hengham's works I was looking at has vet. instead of vett. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here a bibliographic record (including a contemporary translation of the title). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this interesting book. However, I don't see an English translation of the Latin book title. Am I missing something? — SMUconlaw (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain with Restrictions?[edit]

Hi.

The content of some articles contain matieral from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The JE webpage says that the material is in the public domain, but at the same time it places restrition on its use. Is the content which they claim is unedited original pd or not? Samuel Stevens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.1.220 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Encyclopedia website also marks every scanned image as copyrighted, but they apparently have no legal claim to do so, see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and the many project pages that link thereto, so I don't know how credible their copyright claims are. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation request[edit]

Is anyone interested in translating the blue-linked content in this edit so it can be added to the Japanese article at ja:デトロイト大都市圏における日本人の歴史?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]