Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:23, 12 July 2012

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

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.

July 6

Meaning of "vail" given to a servant

From The Life of Samuel Johnson:

I boasted that we had the honour of being the first to abolish the unhospitable, troublesome, and ungracious custom of giving vails to servants.

Johnson. “Sir, you abolished vails, because you were too poor to be able to give them.”

Wiktionary offers "(obsolete) profit; return; proceeds" which suggests the possibility of it being synonymous with "bonus", but while that matches with Johnson's retort, I don't see how Boswell could describe the giving of bonuses as "unhospitable" or "ungracious". So what does "vail" mean in this context? -- ToE 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means a tip, or in the words of the OED "a gratuity given to a servant or attendant; a tip; spec[ifically] one of those given by a visitor on his departure to the servants of the house in which he has been a guest". So the inhospitableness and ungraciousness weren't toward the servants but toward the guests who were expected to cough up the dough. Deor (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. Also, I just found wikisource:Page:Footsteps_of_Dr._Johnson.djvu/78 which corroborates that usage and discusses their abolition. Thanks. -- ToE 03:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Australia, IIRC, has abolished the equally inhospitable custom of giving vails to staff in restaurants, by arranging that said staff are paid properly. At least that was the case 25 years ago when I was there. --ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to tipping, there's been no abolition. It's a bit of a shifting carpet, but there's always been much less cultural rigidity about tipping in Oz, compared to some other countries, particularly the US. If you want to tip, nobody's going to stop you, least of all the waiter (except for the odd few places where the policy is that individual staff may not receive tips but patrons are free to put their tip into a communal container and it's shared among all the staff - or pocketed by the owner). But if you don't tip, nobody will think any less of you (unless you're in a group booking, and the other 7 people want to leave a good tip but you don't; they certainly can't make you, but there may be social consequences, or maybe not). That said, though, some restaurants pay their staff the absolute minimum allowed by law, or less if they think they can get away with it, and expect them to make up the difference with tips - and even sometimes sack them if they're not making enough tips, because that means the service they're providing is not good enough. The law does provide a measure of protection by establishing base wages for hospitality staff, but as I said, some restaurant operators pay below the minimum because they're in high unemployment areas where any casual staff can be sacked with no notice or even a reason, and there are plenty of others to take their place, and the ex-staff have little legal comeback, and almost always don't pursue those avenues of redress, if only because, having been treated poorly, they wouldn't want to work in such a place any more in any event. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Create, sanctify, ordain and so on

I'm wondering about verbs that express the conferring of titles and ranks. Here are a few examples (which I may have wrong).

In England, the Monarch creates Earls, Dukes, and Barons. EG, "Edmund of Langley, 5th son of Edward III and great-grandfather of Edward IV, was created Earl of Cambridge in 1362 and Duke of York in 1385." Churches (at least some churches) ordain ministers and priests. People become knights when they are dubbed. Sanctify is the word for saints, beatify for the previous step in the process toward sainthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

Is there a particular term for verbs of this sort? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's a specific term for verbs that bestow titles upon others, but some of these are examples of performative utterances. See also speech act. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These all look to me like variations on the spectrum between (depending on whether or not you believe in their social legitimacy) proclamations of some kind on the one end, or magic blessings on the other. All are examples of a God-sanctioned person saying, "This dude has/had special powers above and beyond those of ordinary men!" ...be they secular (titles of Nobility) or divine (ordination or canonization). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctify is kind of the odd man out here — it actually means "make holy", which is not a conferral of a title or rank. It could mean "make into a saint", but only if you're using saint to mean "holy person in fact" rather than "person officially recognized as holy by the church authorities". The word for the latter operation is canonize. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the knight dubbing thing: The ritual tapping of the sword on the shoulders used to be the only way a man became a knight. These days, the formal announcement (typically on Queen's Birthday, New Years Day, etc) is all it takes, There are still investiture ceremonies, but not all knights are able to attend; some by tradition are never dubbed (Anglican clergy and maybe others); some die before they get a chance to attend; some even die before the formal announcement (Sir Henry Cotton (golfer) et al) - but they are in every sense a knight, and entitled to use "Sir" and whatever postnominal letters might be appropriate, from the day of the formal public announcement. In this light, dubbing no more creates a knight than coronation creates a monarch. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the latter, I heard someone on TV pointing out that the recent June 2012 jubilee celebration was mistimed as EIIR became queen in February 1952 and wasn't coronated until June 1953. Sussexonian (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice back-formation! I'm also reminded of the girl in the church children's choir who, upon seeing the line "Anoint them prophets!", raised her hand and said, "Shouldn't that be 'Anoint those prophets'?". Angr (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominal posthumous letters. Great!

What is the verb for the action of changing a Roman Catholic Cardinal to a Pope or an Anglican Bishop to an Archbishop? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popes are elected, but bishops (and popes too I suppose) are "elevated" to their post. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought bishops were consecrated. Maybe they're elevated when they're made archbishops. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is "elected" to his post, but his ceremonial inauguration is an enthronement,[1] because bishops and archbishops have a throne to sit on in their cathedral, a word which comes from the Greek kathedra (καθέδρα) meaning "seat". Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Pope Pius XII: Pope Benedict XV appointed Pacelli as nuncio to Bavaria on 23 April 1917, consecrating him as titular Bishop of Sardis and immediately elevating him to archbishop in the Sistine Chapel on 13 May 1917. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Modern Hebrew ה voiced or voiceless?

In Voiced glottal fricative we have the following example: מהר [maɦeʁ], so it is voiced.

But in Modern Hebrew phonology and elsewhere in English wikipedia it is treated as voiceless. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenikx (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different pronunciations of Modern Hebrew depending on which part of the world from which the speaker originates. However, in all the dialects I am familiar with, there is no voiced glottal fricative at all. The "closest" Hebrew phoneme would be /ʕ/, the Voiced pharyngeal fricative for ע, but even that is a relatively uncommon pronunciation found mainly in Yemeni, Iraqi, some Sephardi (Mizrahi) dialects of Hebrew. As far as I know, ה is always voiceless /h/.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it some more thought and rereading the way the sound is described in the Voiced glottal fricative article, /ɦ/ could conceivably be a descriptive allophone of /h/ occurring in rapid speech between two voiced sounds as in the example given (מהר *[maɦeʁ]), but I don't hear it. Prescriptively, ה should always be /h/ and the example at Voiced glottal fricative should probably be removed.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove it before we have some academic sources. The problem is I am a native Hebrew speaker born in Israel and when I pronounce ה at all (usually I just skip it) I do pronounce it as a voiced fricative. So I was surprised to read in wikipedia that it should be voiceless... Now I am trying to determine whether I am speaking my native language incorrectly or there's a mistake of some sort in wikipedia. I do not deny the possibility that there could be some sort of prescriptive norm I am unaware of (as some native speakers of English could be unaware of their problems with normative grammar). But I would like to see some academic sources before I believe it. Tenikx (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you pronounce it voiced at the beginnings of words? What about forms such as התהלך or התהפך ? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In everyday conversations etc I do not pronounce ה at all. But if I speak at some official event, reading a report to a large audience, then every ה is voiced. I did pronounce ה as a voiceless fricative sometimes, but it was on purpose mocking the American accent of my colleagues. Imagine my surprise reading in wikipedia that voiceless ה is supposedly the norm! Very, very strange... Tenikx (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a native speaker, I can not argue with your pronunciation, but I'm curious: Do you hear it as voiced in the speech of other native speakers? Just for another reference, the phonology page on the Hebrew WP הגיית העברית also says that ה is /h/ (voiceless) and describes it as עיצור סדקי, חוכך, אטום--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I am a native speaker does not make me an authority on linguistic problems. I have an open mind about this matter. Maybe my pronunciation is not as "educated" as I have thought... Though I do not remember my teachers at school or university ever correcting very distinct voiced ה that I use while speaking officially. And yes, I do hear it as voiced in the speech of other native speakers. By the way, curiously in Hebrew wikipedia article עיצורים חוככים they say that ה has two allophones - voiceless and voiced: "לפונמה ה"א שני אלופונים, קולי ואטום" Tenikx (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French number names

What caused the irregularities in the French system so that, despite the rest of the system being decimal, 70-99 are vigesimal? Do any other languages have anything similar? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your second question, see "Vigesimal".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From which language (if only one) the French carried over their vigesimal touch doesn't seem to be unequivocally clear according to "Système vigésimal pour les petits nombres" at French Wikipedia. The Gaulish language is mentioned as the most commonly given language of origin, but the article also lists possible Nordic influences, and points out that it is used in Breton too. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the French vigesimal system is attributed to the Celtic substrate, for which see also the sheep counting system yan tan tethera. There are various 4 and 20 based Old European counting systems, but I haven't been able to find much here at Wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even English does some odd things with 11-19, which, if they followed the general rules, would be "tenty-one" through "tenty-nine". StuRat (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were trying to construct a completely regular system of English number words, then "tenty" would mean 100. Some scholars of Indo-European suspect that the word kmtom "hundred" was earlier something like dekmtom (i.e. the word for "ten" plus a suffix)... [Note: All diacritics omitted.] AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, "onety-one" through "onety-nine". StuRat (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that would make ten itself into onety, then. How about tenny-one thru tenny-nine for 11-19? There is also eleventy-one, of course. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten should also be "onety", for consistency with 60,70,80,90. We would also have to change 20,30,40,50 to "twoty", threety", "fourty (spelling change only), and "fivety". I'd also change "seven" to "sev" (and "seventy" to "sevty"), so it's one syllable like the rest of 1-9, and we could also abbreviate "hundred", "thousand", "million", "billion", and "trillion" to the first syllable of each. Maybe we can make all these changes in 5 years, or by "two thou, onety sev". :-) StuRat (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Onety doesn't work very well. Note that you say ten should be onety to be consistent with 60,70,80,90, but you leave off 100 which would then be onetyty, with 1,000 being onetytyty, and so on. A base ten system makes more sense than a base onety system. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't, that's a straw man argument. 100 would be "one hun" and 1000 would be "one thou". I never proposed repeating the "-ty" suffix to mean any more than "times ten", as that would cause confusion and make the names too long. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That's not consistent. Why would hundred and thousand retain their first syllables, but not ten? If it's one hune, two hun, it should be (one) ten, two-ten for 10 and 20, etc.,. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the "ten" which is inconsistent, in that, unlike "hundred", which is used in saying every number from "one hundred" to "nine hundred" (and even "eleven hundred", etc., but never "ten hundred"), we don't say "one ten" to "nine ten". The word "ten" is the anachronism. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know what you mean here by anachronism, but the words one, ten, and hundred (as well as two through nine) are all equally old reflexes from PIE, spoken circa 4,000 BC. I assume you know that -ty is simply a weakened form of -ten. There is simply no getting away from it. If you simply want to make up your own new system you are entitled to it, but I prefer the authenticity achieved by authors like Tolkien who have a little bit of real-world linguistic knowledge behind their efforts.

Is there a natural language where the word for "ten" is a derivation form the word for "one"? --Theurgist (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. The notion of writing '10' and the knowledge of base ten is very recent. The number usually derives from a phrase meaning two hands or five and five. It is a very plausible speculation that our word ten, from the Proto-Indo-European language form *dekmt, derives from *d(w)e- *kemt-, literally "two hand(s)". Interesting article at UTex Ling. Res. Center See also, Proto-Indo-European numerals. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The names of small numbers are likely to be unique, while, at some point, the problem of remembering a unique name for every number that can possibly exist makes languages develop a system for naming large numbers more or less consistently. In English, we seem to have gone to "twelve" before any attempt was made to apply a pattern. I wonder how high this number is in other languages. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They only get to 10 in Russian. Eleven is sort of like "one and ten", and so on. The numbers for the multiples of 10 (up to 80) are, with 2 exceptions, all related to the words for the corresponding single digits; they're like "three-tens", "five-tens" etc. The two exceptions are 40 (sorok), which has no relationship to the word for 4 (chetyre); and 90 is like "nine at hundred", not "nine-tens". (Sorry, my set up is wonky and I don't have quick access to Cyrillic.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above comments would be much better informed if it were kept in mind that the English counting system derives from that of the Proto-Indo-European numerals and did not arise from scratch. Eleven, twelve, (i.e., "one-left", "two-left") and thousand all date to the Proto-Germanic language, and the teens and decades have been reformed by Comparative_method#Analogy when they do not descend directly from the PIE forms. I suggest the UTex article again I just cited. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Chichester

In the UK, "Chichester" is a well known place name and personal name, and "i" in the first syllable is always pronounced like in "hit" or "big". I saw a programme the other day about an individual who used the name "Chichester" in the US, while masquerading as someone of English ancestry. When saying this name, most (actually, I think all) of the Americans featured in the programme pronounced the "i" to rhyme with "pie" or "kite", and/or seemed slightly uncertain about how to say it. Is "Chichester" is a well known name in the US? Is the regular pronunciation to rhyme with "pie"/"kite", or were people making a guess because they were not familiar with it? 86.129.17.237 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that you're talking about the guy who also called himself "Clark Rockefeller". Americans are notoriously bad at not looking into how things are pronounced. Johnny Carson mispronounced the name of his own sidekick, Ed McMahon, for his entire life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that because they knew "Chester", they were making a guess based on dividing it into two words Chi-Chester. It's not the method I would use for guessing at placename pronunciations... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chichester, New York and Chichester, Pennsylvania are pronounced with the i to rhyme with pie too. Don't know about Chichester, New Hampshire nor do I know how well-known these Chichesters are, but the ˈtʃaɪ-version doesn't seem to be uncommon in the US. This doesn't explain why ... ---Sluzzelin talk 01:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms was premiered in New York City but was commissioned by the Chichester Festival in England, so it has the English pronunciation. I wonder if it's ever been performed in the Chichesters in New York (state) or Pennsylvania. Probably not. When I imagine someone saying ˈtʃaɪ-chester, I can't help but think of tea chests. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume the British pronunciation has priority. There are plenty of words of more than one syllable, such as laboratory, which have a single stress on the antepenult in Britain: labORatry and a major (at least secondary) stress on the penult in American: LABraTORy. Unless we have a source that gives the British stress pattern priority, I am tempted to suspect the American form might be just as valid a reflex of the original as the British. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy is not too close, since "laboratory" is a Latinate word which is given radically different stress patterns in British and American (for some reason, modern British almost never stresses -ory or -ary suffixes, while American frequently does). In non-Latinate words such "Chichester", the Latinate type of stress variability is generally not allowed, and the only real variation is whether to treat Chichester as a single-stem (non-compound) word with one main stress, or to treat it as having two stems (i.e. as a kind of compound), and so two strongly-stressed syllables. AnonMoos (talk)`

The article on the cathedral city of Chichester in West Sussex gives the pronunciation /ˈtʃɪtʃɨstər/. But this English Chichester is /ˈtʃaɪtʃɛstə/. Sussexonian (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I live near Chichester in West Sussex. Although it's pronounced /ˈtʃɪtʃɨstər/, locals regularly refer to it colloquially as "Chi" – pronounced /ˈtʃaɪ/. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not strictly trying to draw an analogy with "laboratory", just using it as an example of a word whose vowel qualities differ from American to British due to the stress. In the case of Chichester, the second syllable bears a fully pronounced short /ɛ/ in American. In order to maintain the fully pronounced vowel, the syllable has to have primary or secondary stress. If it were to draw the primary stress, the first syllable would tend either to be fully reduced to /ɨ/ or shortened to /ɪ/. But it is an open syllable (i.e., "chi-" not ending in a consonant like "chip" or "chin"), so the short /ɪ/ is not possible, and an initial /ɨ/ would only be expected if "chi-" were a prefix, which it is not. But, if the first syllable bears a long vowel it can be open and followed by a syllable with a secondary stress. This is what occurs in American. The American pronunciation syllabifies the word as Chi-chest-er with a primary stress on the first vowel, requiring it to be long, since the first syllable is open, and a secondary stress on the second syllable, preventing it from being reduced; whilst the British pronunciation syllabifies the word as Chich-e-ster, allowing a short stressed /ɪ/ in the closed first syllable and a reduced vowel in the second. Note that given the syllabifications, there is no real difference of opinion between the British and Americans over the vowel quality. Americans and Britons are in perfect agreement over how to pronounce the first and second vowels in "bystander" and "minister". The difference is that Americans stress "Chichester" like bystander while Britons stress it like minister. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the point about the British syllabification of the name as Chich-e-ster, per Medeis above: here in Sussex (traditionally, at least), the tendency to stress the first syllable is so emphasised that the name sometimes sounds like Chiddester – /ˈtʃɪdɨstər/ or /ˈtʃɪdəstər/. See here for ref. Saying the name to myself now a few times, I am finding myself veering towards this pronunciation and "losing"/de-emphasising the second syllable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literary element?

In reading some creative writing, I came across "stone sober and viciously drunk". is there some literary term for the play on those words or is it just poetic license? Obviously "stone sober" by itself has alliteration, but what about the entire phrase of contrasts...I'm quite sure I've heard something of the sort for similar phrases.

Also, as an aside, any ideas of what alliteration could replace "viciously"Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerously? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. But it doesnt quite express the anguish it seems the writer wanted.

Just realised the concept of a thesaurus ;) Depraved seem to be the only one there.Lihaas (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Violently" ? "Cruelly" ? StuRat (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alliteration means starting with the same consonant(s) as the target word (drunk). How about "dreadfully"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats nice

But does anyone know if there is a term for a phrase like th eabove?Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is called literary paradox, but you won't find the article very helpful, since it has the worst case of undue weight I have ever seen at wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decidedly drunk ? Deliberately drunk ? Or you could say "He was a Draconian drunk". StuRat (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latter sounds nice.

Just though of other words too...any match with "inebriate"?Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Indelicate inebriate" ? StuRat (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "literary element" question, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "the entire phrase of contrasts", but the general rhetorical term for the juxtaposition of contrasting words or phrases is antithesis. (Cf. the "tough as nails and warm as toast" in the fourth example given here.) Deor (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "devilishly" or "diabolically"? ---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To stick with a single-syllable word: "stone sober and dead drunk", perhaps? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the meaning to be as in a "mean" drunk. "Despiteful" works, as does "stone sober and sour drunk" which works on the esses. I know an alcoholic who is as vicious as a mink right before drinking begins at happy hour. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative writing/poetry

I was wondering what/if there are online sources that publish creative writing pieces and poetry on a regular basis. More inclined to the academic stuff as opposed to anyones work. (granted the good pieces and insipiration could come from any source)Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of fanfic sites, or are you talking about more mainstream/professional sites? poetry.com publishes amateur poems and then there's peer review. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but can you give anyy specific isites?Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short Latin translation needed

"cum Bardulies, quae nunc Castella vocatur, ad accipiendan uxorem accederet": could someone with better Latin than mine please give a translation worthy of being used in an article? I vaguely understand it as "with(?) Bardulia, which is now called Castile, to [something about 'approach'] a wife". - Jmabel | Talk 03:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a full sentence, and accipiendan is not a real word. Is it supposed to be accipiendam? What is you source? (My guess is it means "since he was coming to Bardulia, which is now called Castile, to take a wife") μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quotation from a medieval chronicle, so less-than-perfect Latin is par for the course. Source is that this was quoted (without translation) in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. My Spanish is pretty decent; my Latin is paltry. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's just a typo rather than imperfect Latin. Medeis' translation seems correct. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian

Could someone help me translate this?

Ferdinánd király várakozásait teljes mértékben igazolta, hogy Germána királyné két év múlva teherbe esett, és 57 éves korában a királynak a fiatal felesége valóban fiút szült. János infáns 1509. május 3-án jött a világra,[1] és automatikusan a nővére, Johanna helyébe lépett, Aragónia trónörököse lett, és elnyerte a Girona hercege címet. Az új trónörökös azonban csak pár órát élt, és az apa öröme ürömmé változott, hiszen a várva-várt fiú még aznap, 1509. május 3-án meghalt.[1] Johanna formálisan ekkor elvesztette a jogát az aragón trónra, és az Aragón Gyűlésnek újra meg kellett volna erősítenie trónöröklési jogát, de Ferdinánd király érvényesnek tekintette az Aragón Gyűlés 1502-es határozatát a lánya trónöröklésére vonatkozóan, és végrendeletében Johannát jelölte meg örökösének, unokáját, Habsburg Károlyt pedig anyja országainak a főkormányzójává Johanna „alkalmatlansága” miatt.[1] Az özvegy királynő ugyanis ebben az időben már teljesen elzárva élt Tordesillasban, így az ő uralkodása és trónöröklése jelképes volt, és csak annyit jelentett, hogy a Habsburg-háznak újból esélyei vannak örökölni Aragóniában is II. Ferdinánd halála után. A házaspár ugyan minden praktikát és szert bevetett az utódnemzés érdekében, de több gyermek nem származott a házasságukból, így Ferdinánd reménye szertefoszlott, hogy Aragóniát saját dinasztiája uralma alatt tartsa, és az ne kerüljön a Habsburgok kezébe.
Wacha, Brigitte szerk.: A Habsburgok. Egy európai dinasztia története, Gulliver Kiadó, Budapest, 1995.

De Francisco Olmos, José María: Estudio documental de la moneda castellana de Carlos I fabricada en los Países Bajos (1517), Revista General de Información y Documentación 13, 133–153, 2003. URL: L. Külső hivatkozások

Not th emost accurate but quick (and the rest can be slightly reworded) [2]Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hungarian, but I ran it through Google translate and, while a bit of a hash, it's pretty comprehensible. If you just need the sense of it, that will probably meet your needs, and I recommend it. If you need to come up with a translation for publication purposes, you'll certainly need more than that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see Lihaas did the same, 2 minutes earlier. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this right.

I am trying comprehend what happen to the succession on his death. Did the Aragón Meetings (the Aragonese Cortes I am guessing) have some trouble giving the succession right back to her sister? I have no idea what "Joan formally then lost the right to Aragon throne, and the Aragón Meetings again and had to confirm succession rights, but King Ferdinand valid previewed the Aragón Assembly in 1502 , and the decision of his daughter's throne inheritance of, and testament Joan marked heir, her grandson, Habsburg, Charles and his mother country of the main governor of Johanna "inadequacy" of" mean/ And in the translation, it said he "was killed". I thought he died a natural death. Also how does a person's "joy turned into wormwood"?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wormwood is traditionally a very bitter, unpleasant subsstance which was used to purge the body of parasites. So to say "joy turned into wormwood" means joy turned into bitterness, only in a more poetic fashion. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Translation

Can someone translate this "OBIIT DIVAE MEMORIAE RANIMIRUS REX DIE KAL. FEBRUARII. ERA DCCCLXXXVIII. OBTESTOR VOS OMNES QUI HAEC LECTURI ESTIS. UT PRO REQUIE ILLIUS ORARE NON DESINETIS"?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not th emost accurate but quick (and the rest can be slightly reworded) [3]Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, in this case Google Translate is pretty useless. I actually struggled a bit with this and decided I couldn't translate it well enough to put a translation in the article Ramiro I of Asturias. - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe obiit is "he died", divae is somehow related to "divine", then "memory of King Ramiro in February 888 (that would be Spanish era, so 850 AD)." I don't know "obtestor" (something to do with "invoke", apparently, from Google Translate); then "all you who read this. And to pray for his rest do not DESINITIS??". Anyway, the sense of it is clear, but not clear enough for me to have ventured to publish it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divae memoriae means "of sacred memory", and is kind of a fixed phrase. He died on the first day (kalends) of February. "All you who will read this, do not cease to to pray for his rest" (requie shortened for requiete). AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requies was treated as fifth declension sometimes, so that's probably just the regular ablative. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we're missing "obtestor" still - it is a plea from the person who wrote it, "I pray/beseech/ask that all you who will read this..." etc (AnonMoos has already translated the rest). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What;s the word for ...

Resolved

... that pose you see glamour models doing sometimes, their back to you, looking over their shoulder with a saucy glint? I keep forgetting it, and it's frustrating, cos it's a useful word... Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coquettish? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's a word from zoology, a particular way of presenting to a mate... Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue steel? :D Being more serious, it sounds like you are describing what used to be often referred to as a "come hither" look. But as to a clinical zoological term, I'm not sure. Could you provide still more contextual clues? They might narrow down the possibilities some. Snow (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, but a particular type of come hither, performed while presenting the rump - dunno how to be more specific - maybe I should be posing this on the science desk... Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in animal husbandry there is the concept of "presenting", but presumably that is not the term you are going for either as you just used the word yourself. The more I think on this the more something nags at the back of my mind. I'm sure I've come across this term you're alluding to, and it's going to drive me nuts too now! Snow (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtship display? That's hardly specific to the pose you describe, but does apply generally. Snow (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha! Lordosis? Snow (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha, indeed! Spot on, Snow - how did you find it? And thank you - question answered! Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Grable engaged in lordosis? Who knew? Deor (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, she didn't. Lordosis is a medical condition you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. What we're talking about is "lordosis behaviour", i.e. behaviour that might make you appear to have lordosis, although not done for that reason. Snow did link the right article, but masked it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, my bad - force of habit. Snow (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it in an article on cheetah mating behaviour while searching broadly in that vein (or more precisely I noticed it in the article's abstract on a search page and recognized it - when and where I first encountered it I couldn't say!). And happy to be of help. :) Snow (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Feminine form of "Archon"?

Hi. If Archon is "the masculine present participle of the verb stem ἀρχ-", then what would be the feminine present participle form? --Kreachure (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Your user page says that you are from Colombia, so you may be interested to know that the Spanish word femenino corresponds with the English word feminine.

Wavelength (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Whoopsie! Fixed, thank you! :) Kreachure (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ἄρχουσα (archousa) —Deor (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you just beat me to the punch! To the OP, bear in mind that the meaning of archon seems to be be a slightly idiomatic extraction from the root form, so don't necessarily expect that archousa would be taken to mean the "lady" in the same way archon roughly translates to "lord"; I'm guessing there is in fact an entirely separate word to denote a woman of equal standing in modern contexts, though this is just speculation on my part. Snow (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Byzantine Greek, the feminine form seems to have been "archontissa". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek dictionary gives αρχοντας and αρχοντισσα as words mainly meaning "nobleman" and "noblewoman". In ancient Greek, αρχουσα would have primarily referred to a female ruler; an all-purpose ancient Greek word for "lady" was ποτνια... AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AnonMoos. You answered all my follow-up questions about usage before I could ask! Thanks everyone. --Kreachure (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone summarize this page?

Here's the Japanese Wikipedia spoiler guideline, and it has changed quite a lot since I last saw it. Apparently, they haven't deleted the spoiler templates yet, although their use is now discouraged. Can someone summarize (in English) the exact contents of the page? Google Translate's translation is incomprehensible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a full translation of the "exact contents", or a summary of the contents (which would be somewhat less than the full text)? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the contents. A full translation would probably be too overly detailed for me to comprehend. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to beat you to it Jack, but if you don't see this in time, I'll be interested to see just how well I managed with the translation. Snow (talk)

The field's all yours as far as I'm concerned, Snow. I know about 6 words of Japanese. I was just keen to establish exactly what the OP was after, because their question seemed to be asking for 2 contradictory things. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, don't swear by anything in this because my Japanese skills are limited, but this should be generally accurate. Basically it boils down to a description of the purpose of spoiler alerts and then goes on to say that they have been used in the past on the Japanese Wikipedia but that they are by no means required and that readers should always assume that articles on fiction will contain spoilers. It also note that the use of spoiler alerts is controversial and there is no firm consensus on whether they are appropriate or when they should be used. It also gives some technical details on how to use spoiler alert templates as well detailing templates which have been discontinued in use. Snow (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otaheitian

Hi!!

In a novel by Tasmaian author Richard Flanagan "Wanting" on page 83 at bottom of page this word comes up....'A savage, my dear Wilkie, be he Esquimau (archaic for Eskimo)or an Otaheitian, is someone who succumbs to his passions.Where does this word orginate from?41.12.183.251 (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just "Tahitian". If I remember correctly, "o" is a vocative particle in Polynesian languages. When Europeans first encountered them, they heard every proper noun with an o- in front of it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, see for example 'ote'a, traditional Tahitian dance. It's almost certainly a dated transliteration for Tahitian. Snow (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, the old spellings Otaheiti and Otaheite are redirects to Tahiti. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice catch. Snow (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some people add an "intrusive" /l/ (L) sound when...

..they pronounce the /ej/ or the /aj/ vowel cluster so that it becomes something like /eli/ or /ali/? Examples: [4] —the guy screams "Einstein" but he makes it sound something like "/ajnʃtalin/"— [5] —Nena says "dann singe ich ein Lied für dich" but sounds a bit like "dann singelich ein Lied für dich". --Immerhin (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could hear nothing even remotely resembling the faintest whiff of a shade of a hint of a trace of an "intrusive L" in either case, either at normal speed or slowed down. Sorry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I stretch my ears wide open and listen extremely closey there might just possibly be "the faintest whiff of a shade of a hint of a trace of" a yod, but definitely not an /l/. Roger (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you two are in the tiny, marginal, insignificant minority, because most people in the Simpsons video claim they hear something like "quit stalling". --Immerhin (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have borrowed your "faintest whiff of a shade of a..." thing for my future user page. --Immerhin (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guy in the Simpsons video does say "quit stalling". I don't know where "Einstein" comes from. As for Nena...I don't hear any sort of L there. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that people would easily introduce an additional consonant into a diphthong. I.e. it seems rather unlikely that /ej/ or /aj/ would or could become /eli/ or /ali/. I listened the video from the Simpsons, so that my mind wouldn't be distracted by the subtitles. The first couple of times I hear 'quit stalling', then, as the video slows down, it becomes 'Einstein'. Could it be possible that whoever made that video edited the soundtrack?

As for Nena, I can conceive of one way in which /e.i/ becomes /eli/: /e/ and /i/ are both frontal vowels and /l/ is a frontal consonant, so I suspect that in certain contexts (depending on speaker's langugage/accent and the listener's language/accent) and the movements of the tongue in the mouth, it might seem like there is an /l/ between the two vowels that isn't meant to be there. V85 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I hear "quit stalling" (even when the sub-title clearly says "Einstein") at normal speed, and "Einstein only at the slowest speeds. I am surprised because sub-titles are normally so powerful for me that they can convince me I speak fluently any of the Romance languages. I am also surprised because, in my local pronunciation of these words in English, the two syllable in "Einstein" are an exact rhyme with nothing in common with any sound in "quit stalling". Curious. Bielle (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As V85 said, the video has probably been edited. It doesn't even make sense to say "Einstein" there. The guy interrupts Prof. Frink to tell him to hurry up, before Frink has even said anything. That's the joke. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a sort of sense to call any scientist in a white lab coat "Einstein". Maybe it's an American thing, but he seems to be stressing the second syllable of Einstein. I've never heard anyone do that, ever. That more than anything tells me it's been edited. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this as "quit stalling." A rather typical joke for the Simpsons. The way he yells Einstalling in the replay in the clip is not said naturally as if he were addressing Frink. One would have said, "What's the plan, Einstein" not "Einstein! What's the plan?" μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the episode? —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bart's Comet μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been edited (slowed down and then upped in freq to get it back to normal speech), but I don't think it's been faked.

Since I was primed to hear "Einstein", I initially heard "Einstein" in all versions, even the first one. Once I figured it was probably "quit stalling", I heard that in all versions, even the slow ones. I suspect the problem is that [l] is effectively a vocoid, and isn't very salient when heard at low speeds. It's still there, just too drawn out to be what we normally rec. as an [l]. So I suspect that the subtitles are in error. Maybe the subtitlers weren't sure what was said (I think I remember not being able to catch this myself, when I saw it on the air), so they slowed it down, and at slow speeds the [l] is hardly noticeable as a consonant? I wonder if at low speeds, other approximants like [j, w, ɹ] also sound like vowels.

Dark [l] has two components, and alveolar one (similar to the vowel of -ing), and a velar one (similar to the vowel of stall). So it's easy to hear it as just the transition of the vowels, which gets you the diphthong in stein. Maybe.

My sister used to say "I Saul it" for "I saw it". And of course in Braz. Port., sol is [sou]. There can be some odd interferences between [l] and back vowels. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the intonation is definitive in favor of "quit stalling". If he were uttering a vocative at the beginning of a question it would have a rising intonation. It most definitely does not. The utterance has a definite intonation of command, not of address. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought vocatives were commands. At least I treat them that way: if I say your name, I expect you to look at me – it's no different than hey! or listen! I think the intonation would work for either, which may be why it's so difficult to tell them apart. — kwami (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A command contains a verb. Listen! is a command. Shut up! and Love me forever! (not necessarily in that order) are also commands. Hey! or Egbert! or You over there! are just ways of getting someone's attention. Once you've got their attention, you can issue any commands you like. If you're lucky, they'll limit their response to Fuck off!. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the formal definition. I just doubt that there's much functional difference. The purpose and intonation are the same for me. "Look!" or "Listen!" are often used for no more than getting people's attention too. The imperative is a verb form that expresses a command. But interjections may express commands too, and it seems to me so do vocatives. At least in the sense of commanding attention. I wonder if there's a term that covers all of them? — kwami (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could analyse it as follows: In a restaurant you call "Waiter!" to get the waiter's attention (I make him male in this example). The general expectation is that he does not just turn to look at you. Rather, he comes over to you, or if he's busy right now, he signals that he's heard you and will be over very shortly. Effectively, you've called out "Waiter! Please come here!", but the agreed shorthand "Waiter!" is used. The long version consisted of an exclamation and a command; the short version drops the command element, but the exclamation remains. It doesn't mean that the exclamation has become a command; it means that a combined exclamation-command is being represented by an exclamation alone. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can ignore the semantics of what to call it when you use someone's name or title, again, what is relevant here is that when you call "waiter" you use a rising intonation, whereas if you were to pretend "waiter" were a verb and were to issue the command to someone to waiter: "Waiter!" it would have a flat or slightly falling intonation. You can hear the difference if you call Bob's name to get his attention, or issue the command "bob!" to initiate a bobbing-for-apples contest. Try saying the word the two ways out loud. What is relevant in the Simposns clip is that there is no rising intonation as if he were saying Einstein's name to get his attention. It is clearly uttered with the intonation of a command, and one cannot command someone to Einstein. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened to this several times, and I cannot hear anything remotely resembling "quit stalling" (BrE speaker). 86.179.7.34 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. The opening syllable starts with a vowel, not a consonant. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would really be interesting would be to know whether you (pl) understand the point about intonation, and if you do, whether you think it sounds like he is saying Einstein to get Frink's attention, or if it sounds like he's telling him to Einstein. (To me its ounds like "Quit Stalling!", then Einstalling! in the replay, the "Einstein!" when it is slowed down. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my earlier post about stressing the second syllable of Einstein (ine-STINE)? Although that's unique in my experience, I still don't hear anything remotely like "quit stalling". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't take that as answering my question directly, which was about intonation, which is technically different from stress, but it does imply we have similar interpretations. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not say I thought he was saying "Einstein". I agree that the intonation and word order are unusual if he is using "Einstein" as a generic (or sarcastic) name for a clever person. To me, the intonation and word order seem more suited to hailing someone who really is named "Einstein". On the other hand, I can't think of any other word(s) it could be. 86.179.7.34 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob!" (vocative) and "bob!" (for apples) can have the same intonation. There are many vocative intonations, depending on what you're conveying, and one of them is the same as a verbal imperative. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what verbal imperative do you have in mind? (Or, if you are in the "quit stalling" camp, then I agree that the intonation may fit, but I have the small problem of not actually being able to hear the right sounds to form those words, notably starting with the first "k" sound.) 86.179.7.34 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine

What is the deal with pronouncing this name, in all its various contexts? I had a professor who pronounced it /ɒˈɡʌstɨn/, which I thought was very bizarre, because I had always assumed the saint's name was pronounced like the city, /'ɔːɡəstin/. The cites on the Augustine of Hippo page and this archive entry suggest that the former pronunciation is the more-common one among educated speakers, while using the pronunciation of the city for the saint is erroneous. Is this a fair assessment of the situation? If so, why are the pronunciations of the saint and city divergent, and what about people who aren't Augustine of Hippo? How are their names pronounced? If I named my child Augustine, how would modern speakers expect to pronounce it, knowing he is neither a city nor yet a saint? Thanks! 67.164.156.42 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the aid of the Help:IPA for English page, I think that here in England we'd be closer to your second, although with a "u" sound in the second syllable. Exactly like the month of August with "in" tacked on the end. Augustine of Canterbury is held in rather higher regard here, as it was he who converted the heathen Saxons and founded the Church of England in AD 597. Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say that in England the standard pronunciation is like the professor's, saint aw-GUSS-tin. Sussexonian (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone use that pron. in the US. MW gives Áugustine first, and Augústine second. For both Hippo & Canterbury. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the same for me - Americans and Canadians stress the first syllable, and British people the second syllable. But for Augustine of Hippo and Augustine of Canterbury, I have the feeling that the British way is more correct, and I would correct myself if I said it the "wrong" way. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a short survey here in Winnipeg (basically, the people sitting in this coffee shop), in Canada it's pronounced August-TEEN, with the stress on the last syllable. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more French to me; could it be a slight bit of Quebecois influence that's become standard in Canadian English? Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds strange...I'm sure they are stressing the first syllable too, but also pronouncing the -EEN ending, which is one of the pronunciations above. (At least, that's how every other Canadian I know would say it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two syllables are given about the same weight. Aw-gus-TEEN. Could be a Western thing. --NellieBly (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the more common British pronunciation is due to the adjective august, which is pronounced with the stress on the second syllable. Does the name Augustine mean "awe-inspiring" or "venerable", or simply "like or pertaining to St. Augustine"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Latin name Augustinus was derived from the adjective augustus. Augustine is the English version of Augustinus,

That reminds me that I've never been sure whether the August in The Teahouse of the August Moon (film) is pronounced like the month or the venerable adjective. It could reasonably be either. The article sheds no (moon)light on it. Maybe if I wait till next month ... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, it's the month (although the "venerable" word is often pronounced in the same way by U.S. speakers). Deor (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The month, because the Teahouse is named for the August Moon festival. But in the spoof The Teahouse of the August Goon it should be pronounced as "venerable ". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, according to our article "Mid-Autumn Festival" to which "August Moon" redirects, "[t]he festival is held on the 15th day of the eighth month in the Chinese calendar, which is in September or early October in the Gregorian calendar, close to the autumnal equinox" (emphasis added). It seems that at some stage someone simply assumed that the eighth month of the Chinese calendar equated to August. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From such cultural ignorance comes enlightenment. I can now say the name of that movie with confidence, for which I thank you all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

July 9

Chinese (I suppose) ideogram

Composed of three parallel horizontal lines and one vertical line in the middle. What's that? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. --Viennese Waltz 13:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's a symbol. In the ideogram that I saw, the vertical line is not so long. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the term "ideogram" is not really an appropriate word to refer to most Chinese characters; linguists much prefer "logogram". It could be a rotated form of a contraction for "30" (卅, see here); otherwise, it doesn't seem much like a typical Chinese character... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

王, perhaps? Deor (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it must be 王, "the one 一 who connects heaven, humanity and earth 三". No idea if that interpretation is true. —Kusma (t·c) 14:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed from OsmanRF34's unclear description and interaction with Viennese_Waltz that the vertical had to extend above and below the horizontals; if that's not the case, then of course you're right... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

丰 is apparently also a character, by the way. In Japanese I'm pretty sure that one is not very common, but I'm not sure about Chinese... 86.179.7.34 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

丰 isn't too uncommon in Chinese - probably one of the top 1000 characters. It's mostly seen in the fairly common word 丰富. But still far less common than 王, which is a very common surname and also means 'king'. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese_Waltz happened to pick the similar-looking symbol rather than the character 丰, which is common and means "prosper" or "abundant". I do not agree that it is "mostly seen" as part of the word 丰富 (richly varied), it is also very commonly seen as part of the word "丰收" (good harvest) and various idioms. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chic emporium?

In the context of the edible underwear article, what is a "chic emporium"? Dismas|^(talk) 13:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A small, trendy clothes shop. --Viennese Waltz 13:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you hoping to hear chick emporium? μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew what the two words meant but not together. Dismas|^(talk) 23:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before investing in edible underwear, it might be advisable to check a similar discussion on the Misc. ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, "chic" means "stylish". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Chic?

Can anyone give the actual etymology of the French word chic? I once had the hardest time because I told a Dominican woman she looked trẻs chic, which she interpreted as meaning girlish, given the meaning of chica in Spanish. She wouldn't believe me when I said it meant elegante. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:chic#French, wikt:chic#German, wikt:chic#English have some information; it's unsourced though. By the way, how did you manage to get the Vietmanese letter modifier? The hook above-modified letters don't seem to be available in the box beneath the edit window. --Theurgist (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I knew of the German word schick and didn't think of it at all. Somehow they don't sound alike in my head. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see that wasn't grave. I used the Latin extended, should just have used the Latin. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In MacOS with the Extended keyboard, I get the Vietnamese hook with opt-z before the vowel: ảẻỉỏủỷ. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what EO has to say about it:[7] Despite the obvious punning opportunity, I think we can rule out "chic" having anything to do with "chick". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms derived from Hebrew

Why does the list of English words derived from Hebrew not include "riffraff", from the Hebrew "ayrev rav", as used in the Book of Exodus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.222.120 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because that's an exceedingly unlikely etymology of the English word? See here, for instance. Deor (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the OED, "riffraff" is probably derived from Anglo-Norman/Old French rifraf, ryfraf, rif et raf; the first element may come from a Germanic source. A possible Hebrew origin isn't mentioned at all; this doesn't rule it out, of course, but it does suggest it's not thought likely. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

Three Brothers

The articles H and eta seem to explain decently how Latin and Greek have such different values and miniscules for the letter H. But does the Cyrillic letter en (Нн), again with a different miniscule, have any relation to these two? Inter change able 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Нн is derived from nu. Its form actually resembles a Ν in Early Cyrillic texts. The Cherokee character Ꮋ is the fourth brother, but is likewise very much unrelated. --Theurgist (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a brother. It's pronounced [mi], so I'd call it a masked imposter—identical only in shape. Inter change able 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Laid on the ground" or "lied on the ground"

I know that the distinction is determined by what is on the ground but what do I use if it is an object ("disturbance") that turns out to be a living person? And suppose someone is waking up and they are kind of speechless and they aren't thinking anything? Its like the kind of scenes in movies where someone is coming to in an unknown place and their almost on auto pilot. --Melab±1 ☎ 03:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the past tense of lie is lay, not lied, which is the past tense of 'to tell an untruth'. Can you give an example sentence? Then we can give the proper correction if need be. There should be an article lay versus lie as well. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The source of the disturbance laid on the ground. Frank woke up..." --Melab±1 ☎ 17:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the intransitive "to lie" which Jack mentions below. The simple past would be "The source of the disturbance lay on the ground." μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the distinction is not to do with the nature of the object on the ground, it's what's happening to it. Let me explain.

If I take an object and I place it on the ground in a certain way, I am "laying" it on the ground. The object could be an item of clothing or a piece of timber or a dead body or a live body, makes no difference. The verb for what I did to the object is "to lay". What did I do to it? I "laid" it down. (past tense). "To lay" is a transitive verb; it takes an object. You always lay something, you don't just lay.
I go away and someone comes around the corner and sees the thing I've just ~~"lain"~~ "laid" (past participle of "to lay") on the ground.
As far as this person is concerned, the object is just "lying" there. That's from the verb "to lie". This is an intransitive verb. Things don't lie something, they just lie. (Example: Don't just lie there, do something.) The past tense of "to lie" is, as Medeis said, "lay". (Example: I thought he was alive, but I wasn't sure, because he just lay there for a hour without moving).
The continuous past of "to lie" is "was/were lying": (Example: I thought he was alive, but I wasn't sure, because he was just lying there without moving).
People often say "I was laying in bed but had to get up". The grammarians would prefer "I was lying in bed". And that's no lie. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, Jack, you've laid it out clearly, but if birds could speak ... Dbfirs 06:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm supposed to be afraid to ask. And I am. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, the past participle of lay is laid. The parts of lie are lie, lay, lain, lying. Inter change able 20:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: I lied after all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The direct object pronoun me (for myself) is important in "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep".

—Wavelength (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2000 and up

Why don't I hear people read the years 1999 and below as one thousand nine hundred ninety-nine, one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight etc. but I hear people read the years 2000 and up as two thousand, two thousand one etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.240.243.100 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those things. Many people prefer the form "twenty-xxxx", so in that case 2009 might be pronounced "twenty-oh-nine". That is, of course, more consistent with past usage, but also sounds a little forced in practice (try it and you'll see what I mean), and if you use it in conversation, you're very likely to get weird looks. We really should have an article Pronunciation of year names, or something similar. We do have a section on it here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say "twenty-oh-nine" all the time. I don't think it sounds forced and I've not yet noted any strange looks. Maybe it's a geographic thing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question would be better phrased "why don't I hear people read the years 2000 and above as 'twenty double-oh', 'twenty oh-one', etc"—though I suppose it's obvious from the extremely strange-sounding "twenty double-oh" why we don't do that, now isn't it? Basically, enough people think it sounds stupid reading it as two two-digit numbers to not want to do that. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a question of what is shorter to pronounce, wich is mostly a function of the number of syllables. "One thou·sand nine hund·red nine·ty-nine" is eight syllables long as opposed to "nine·teen nine·ty-nine" with only five syllables. On the other hand, "twen·ty dou·ble-oh" has five syllables, but "two thou·sand" has only three. Starting with 2010, the "twenty" pronunciation become shorter again – compare "twen·ty ten" (3) and "two thou·sand ten" (4) – so it's possible it will become more popular with time. "Twenty twenty" may sound awkward, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Twenty ten" and "twenty twelve" sound natural to me but "twenty eleven" does not, I wonder why that is... but yes, I'm sure after 2020 the convention will set back into reading the two pairs of numbers again. - filelake shoe  08:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, for example, they do spell out the entire number. 1999 would have been mil novecientos noventa y nueve, or something like that. Very awkward, if you ask me. It may be that a lot of folks were saying "two-thousand..." just because of the novelty of it - we don't go into triple 0's very often. One thing I've noticed especially since 2010 arrived is that more and more spoken media (TV and radio) are saying "twenty..." rather than "two-thousand..." Charles Osgood has been saying "twenty..." for quite awhile now. Now it's a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Spaniard may have been responsible for an edit I undid yesterday. I seriously hope that doesn't catch on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish is an interesting parallel. The situation is different even in languages that are quite closely related—many Swedish speakers prefer to call the current year tjugohundratolv: tjugo 20 + hundra 100 + tolv 12, similar to how we may refer to 1900 as "nineteen hundred". Norwegian speakers are more likely to call it totusen(og)tolv, "two thousand (and) twelve". dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French do exactly the same as the Spanish: 2012 deux-mille-douze, 1992: mille neuf cent quatre-vingts douze. As for Norwegian, there was a discussion preceding 2010 as to how to read years higher than 2009. Many speakers naturally followed the English model of twenty-XX, however Språkrådet argued that since we refered to years 1000-1099 as one thousand XX, it should be the same for the years 2000-2099. The form similar to Swedish of 20-hundred is practically unheard of, since Norwegian normally doesn't deal with multiples of one hundred higher than 9, i.e. 1200 is one thousand two hundred, usually never twelve hundred. V85 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Riksmålsforbundet (and I am big fans of theirs) advocates that for the same reason. On a somewhat-related note, Språkrådet seems to lean in favour of tjue instead of tyve for 20, and tretti instead of tredve for 30, while Riksmålsforbundet prefers things the other way around. (This discussion in turn reminds me of the internal turmoil I always experience when deciding whether or not I should put English "the" in front of definite form Norwegian/Swedish/Danish words, but that's a discussion for another time.) dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 08:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely anecdotally, the date convention of "Two thousand and . . ." rather than "Twenty . . ." (in parallel with "Nineteen . . .", "Eighteen . . ." etc) seems to have been influenced by the popular titular renditions of Clarke and Kubrick's film and book 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I have heard it said in the SF Community that Clarke originally expected it to be pronounced "Twenty-Oh-One." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A century ago, did people say "nineteen-ought-six", as seems to be implied in the "thirty-ought-six" (.30″) rifle caliber standardized in that year? —Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Also, after the Kaiser stole the word twenty, the third decade of the last century had to be referred to as the Roaring Ticketies. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Highly dubious! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Emmy-winning Ken Burns documentary, supports Tamfang's supposition as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXfQzfl9EQ μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

See a previous thread here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with Kpalion on this one: There probably is no external logic to this, other than what is simpler/easier to say. For the years 2000-2009, the reason for not using the word "twenty" is obvious: 2001 read as "twenty-one", sounds like 21. The same goes for twenty-two, twenty-three ... twenty-nine. One could have inserted an "oh" there, (twenty-oh-eight), but that yields just as many syllables as two-thousand-eight, which (in my mind) is clearer. V85 (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, in British English, where we say "two thousand and eight" (albeit the "and" tends to degenerate to "n"), there is a slight economy of syllables in "twenty oh eight". 86.179.2.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly British. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely is. 86.179.115.69 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's British in as much as using the word "is" is British. It is common to all dialects of English. You'd confuse the heck out of an American if you told him, we Brits speak different to you, we say bread 'n' butter pudding. He'd say, you can get the ingredients both at the Shop 'n Save 'n' at the Shop n Bag further down the road. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Americans often omit the "and" in a "two-thousand-and-eight"-type construction, as V85 did above. British and other Commonwealthians always include it. If anyone omits it, that marks them at least as a North American, possibly specifically from the USA. I'm not sure what the Canadians do here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid (in the U.S.) my mother told me quite directly that it was wrong to say "nineteen-oh-eight" and the like; only "nineteen eight" was correct. "Nineteen hundred and eight" wasn't even mentioned as a possibility. "Nineteen and eight" sounds like a price in pre-decimalization Britain (fourpence less than a pound). Angr (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, mothers, bless them. My mother once told me the only time the Moon is ever visible is at night-time. She also told me that Mussolini was known as "Il Duce", but in her pronunciation the second word was exactly like the English word "deuce". That's understandable for someone who'd never heard Italian; I've never understood the Moon thing. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The archived discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 December 24#Six days left and I'm still uncomfortable calling them the "ohs", "aughts" or "noughties". How about you? has related information.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translate Chinese sign

Can anyone translate the sign in the image half way down this page? I'm guessing it tells people not to climb on the sculpture. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "危险" (first line) "禁止攀爬" (second line), which translates basically to "Danger", "Climbing prohibited". The word used for "climbing" here is, literally, "climb-crawling", a specific type of "climbing" in Chinese which refers to climbing/crawling on one's hands and knees (as up a hill) as opposed to vertical climbing (as up a rock face). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wasn't expecting the "danger" bit. Wonder whether the "danger" relates to health and safety or the overzealous response of security officials to anyone unfortunate enough to be caught climbing/crawling on it... --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would be more scared of the latter... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

Chinese

Does Ba Sing Se really mean Impenetrable City like Avatar says? Google Translate says that it should be 坚不可摧的城市 (jiānbùkěcuī de chéngshì). --108.225.117.142 (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shi (市) on its own can mean city, so depending on how loose your original version's transcription is, possibly. Nothing springs to mind for the Ba Sing part though. Which avatar are you referring to?Henry ^Flower 08:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender. Rmhermen (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any idea what Ba Sing Se actually means, if anything? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing. On Chinese wikipedia the name is translated as 霸新塞, which doesn't really mean anything (霸 = tyrant, 新 = new, 塞 = stuff something into something else, but together they're just a phonetic transcription - 塞 could also be "a place of strategic importance", but in that case it's pronounced sai not se) 59.108.42.46 (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

塞 in the sense of "stuffing something into something" is also pronounced "sai" but with a different tone. It is only pronounced "se" when used as part of a compound that means "blocked". Which, ironically, does in a sense mean "impenetrable", but only in the way that your toilet is impenetrable when it's blocked and overflowing, not "impenetrable" in the sense that "our defence lines are so strong, they are impenetrable".

霸 does not generally mean "tyrant", but rather "hegemony", in the classical political sense, or "domination".

So you could say that the Chinese wikipedia translation could mean something like "The hegemonic new impenetrability due to a blockage". I presume that's not the kind of impenetrability the authors were thinking of, but who knows? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Greek vs Aramaic as original language of New Testament

Could anybody provide me with a scholarly reference that gives the arguments for why the New Testament was originally written in Greek, and not in Aramaic, as the alternative view says? Or, a response to the theories of a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew? I don't doubt that they were originally in Greek, but I would just like to see, in detail, what the reasons for concluding that are. Thanks. Cevlakohn (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A N Wilson argues in Jesus, a Life that the gospel use of the technical word opsarion to refer to cooked fish for sale rather than ichthys shows the genuinety of the greek text. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this book too but it's held in very poor regard by scholars.. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily true that all of what we now refer to as the new testaments occurred first in Greek, only that the physical evidence that we have that dates back earliest is in greek (and these Ante-Nicene Period texts are far from complete themselves). Christianity did spread very quickly to greek-speaking people. Bear in mind we are speaking of Hellenistic peoples here, not Hellenic, at least at first. These people, widely dispersed in the middle east at the time (as indeed many of their descendants still are today) as the result of early greek colonialism and Alexander the Great's brief stint as King of everything. Point of all being that Greek became a kind of hegemonical language, and one of scholarship throughout the region as well as in the Mediterranean -- so even if ethnically Greek people hadn't been amongst the first people to be converted to the young religion, you'd still probably expect the early scriptures to be written in greek. And it is my understanding that this is exactly what happened on both counts. But there was a very narrow span of time where it remained essentially a small Hebrew community that could feasibly have penned texts at this time. Whether this happened or whether the Apostolic Age transitioned cleanly into greek texts as a result of the rapid conversions in the first century I expect would be a matter of some debate amongst scholars, since the era is poorly understood in general and separating fact from cannon is difficult in some cases and even the learned members of the early Christian community disagreed strongly on what actual was cannon and even on how much cannon should frame the texts going forward (should dubious but inspiration text be included, for example). As such, even assuming an original hebrew version of the new testament, knowing how much of that relates to the text we know today and how much was embellishment that got added in as the greek versions quickly took predominance is an open question -- and that's putting aside for the moment that we know that these texts were further tailored in the following centuries. In any event, the sources you asked for can be found here. You might also be interested in History of early Christianity and Early centers of Christianity. Snow (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and btw, as regards the RefDesk, it's preferred that you don't post the same question on multiple pages, at least not at the same time. It's probably more appropriate here, than at the Humanities desk, imo. Snow (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it in Humanities, but after a few minutes thought it fit better here so I deleted it there and reposted it here. I never meant for it to be in both places at the same time... sorry if you caught both versions. Cevlakohn (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly consensus is that none of the books of the New Testament were originally written in a non-Greek language, and if some of them depend on any written Aramaic text, this would have been a "sayings document", or list of direct quotes from Jesus (though the existence of such a "sayings document" written source is disputed and controversial). You could follow some of the references given on Language of the New Testament... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some uncertainty with regard to Matthew. It seems likely that there was indeed a gospel written in Hebrew by a Jewish-Christian author or group of authors ascribed (probably pseudonymously) to Matthew the apostle. Whether or not that document represented an early form of the Koine Greek document known as the Gospel of Matthew, however, is doubtful, for reasons that are too boring for me to recount. At any rate, even the early Jewish converts to Christianity were mostly Hellenized Jews, so Snow is right that Greek would have been the lingua franca in pretty much any period you want to talk about, possibly even as early as the first century. When you get into saying documents and the like, things become a lot more uncertain. I don't know of anyone, for example, who would argue that Q absolutely has to have been written in Koine Greek. For a good book on the subject of the different cultural influences on Early Christianity, I recommend (if you can find it) The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, by James Parkes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this is probably where you'd expect the first differentiation of sects within the religion to begin, given the broad cultural differences between the Alexandrian and Palestinian Jews. Snow (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could people comment on the languages in use in oral transmission of "texts" amongst Jewish, Samaritan and righteous Gentile groups around 1–50 AD in what is now Egypt and Israel/Palestine and Lebanon? Did particular cults, sects or tendencies favour particular languages, to what extent do we have evidence of trans-lingual or interlingual puns? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, records are very spotty during this era, but we do know that the Alexandrian Jews were already well assimilated into the Ptolemaic culture by the first century and had developed a certain amount of the cosmopolitan culture that you might expect from those living in such a place as Alexandria was at the time (a center of scholarship, trade, and multiculturalism) and as such did not rigorously observe all of the traditions of Jews in Judea. As to answering your question more directly as regards linguistic preferences, the issue is muddled, but there are some broad trends that are somewhat evidenced but mostly assumed: Alexandrian Jews seem to have adopted greek for their religious practices well before this point in time (as would be expected as it was the first language for most of them), though Hebrew remained common; it seems likely that early Christian converts did the same. Likewise, in Judea Hebrew would have been the language of religious practice for Jews, Samaritans, and to some extent the early Christians, though greek would have played a role, as could have other languages common in the Levant. Putting a finer point on it than that is beyond the sources that I know, but if I find anything, I'll place it here. Snow (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my assumption was that language use was primarily a spatial rather than a sectarian phenomena as such. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fair assumption to make, at least "big picture" wise. Note that the case might be a bit more complicated with regard to the fact to Samaritan's, who at some point began using a mix of Samaritan Hebrew (based heavily on traditional Biblical Hebrew owing to their common ancestry and, at one point, unified religion) and Samaritan Aramaic; the situation further complicated by the fact that some of these Samaritans might have been bilingual with regards to the then-contemporaneous Hebrew and/or Greek as they were also themselves divided culturally. Honestly I am unsure which of the above contenders is likely to have been the most predominant for this group, nor how far apart in mutual intelligibility the various Aramaic languages involved had diverged, since several were scriptural languages, which can in rare cases constrain the normally rapid pace of linguistic drift. You'd have to ask an expert in that particular family to get a cogent and useful answer to that, I suspect. Perhaps Medeis or Judith know a bit more about those divides? Snow (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, not me. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost entirely ignorant of Semitic linguistics, but my impression is that most of the Northwest Semitic dialects back then were pretty close. You had better ask someone else. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To ItsmeJudith above, I have read many scholars on the Gospels and they all hold each other in especial disregard. Yes, Wilson is writing as a literary critic, but his point on opsarion is not bad or invalid. My favorite scholar is Geza Vermes, who analyzes terms of Jesus such as "The Son of Man" which he treats as glosses from the Aramaic which make no sense in Greek as such. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It was Wilson, wasn't it, who said that Joseph's occupation, derived from tekhne, should not be translated carpenter, but rather denoted someone of quite high social status. I found that interesting. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

English "on me" construction-- two questions

What is the linguistic term for using the phrase "on me" with the meaning "and this was bad for me," as in "my computer crashed on me"? And how would I render this same meaning in Spanish? (I'm thinking "me rompio la computadora" would be close but I'm not sure.) 69.107.248.119 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "on me" thing is a very slangy idiom. I would be surprised if there was a literal Spanish equivalent. You would simply state that the computer failed, i.e. perhaps just "rompio la computadora" without the "me", or "my" computer failed, i.e. "rompio mi computadora". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but I had always read the construction "[X did Y] on me" in this sense to connote that X was someone or something on which I had depended to do something, or not to do Y, and by doing Y it had failed my expectation. In that sense, I see a distinction between, on the one hand, "He bailed on me", which, at least in my particular variety of English, can mean for example "he failed to show up at a time to a place at and to which I had expected him to show", and on the other hand, "the tree fell on me". Both constructions are identical on their faces and in both situations the result is bad for me, but the sense conveyed by "on me" seems different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's off-topic at all. The tree example is literal, and the others are metaphorical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there are other meanings, perhaps shortened from "the onus is on me":

"That's my fault" as in "sorry about the broken vase, that's on me".

"That's my responsibility" as in "I'll bring the chairs, that's on me". StuRat (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also have 'the responsibility for paying for this lies with me': "Have a drink on me". See also "The Milkybars are on me!" - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably just have to say these are idiomatic usages. I'd look for meanings under the OED. They'll mention if there is any special term for the usage. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed in the OED, under sense 20f of "on" as a preposition: "To the disadvantage or detriment of (a person); so as to affect or disturb. colloq." The earliest examples listed for this in the OED are from the late 1800s. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 19:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a dativus incommodi or dative of disadvantage. Angr (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish would be Se me rompió la computadora. Here "se" is the obligatory direct object, showing it was the computer which broke, and you (me) were the indirect object 'beneficiary' of the breaking. Me rompió la computadora would be interpreted as "he broke my computer" or even possibly "the computer broke me" if it made sense in context. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Olympic Games" (grammatical number)

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Olympic Games" (grammatical number) (version of 22:35, 11 July 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ::::::: The point is that Americans often omit the "and" in a "two-thousand-and-eight"-type construction, as V85 did above.  British and other Commonwealthians always include it.  If anyone omits it, that marks them at least as a North American, possibly specifically from the USA.  I'm not sure what the Canadians do here. --  ♬ [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] ♬ [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 :::::::: When I was a kid (in the U.S.) my mother told me quite directly that it was ''wrong'' to say "nineteen-oh-eight" and the like; only "nineteen eight" was correct. "Nineteen hundred and eight" wasn't even mentioned as a possibility. "Nineteen and eight" sounds like a price in pre-decimalization Britain (fourpence less than a pound). [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]]) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
+::::::::: <small>Ah yes, mothers, bless them.  My mother once told me the only time the Moon is ever visible is at night-time.  She also told me that Mussolini was known as "Il Duce", but in her pronunciation the second word was exactly like the English word "deuce".  That's understandable for someone who'd never heard Italian; I've never understood the Moon thing.  --  ♬ [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] ♬ [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC) </small>
 :The archived discussion at [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 December 24#Six days left and I'm still uncomfortable calling them the "ohs", "aughts" or "noughties". How about you?]] has related information.
 :—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)