Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 October 3

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

October 3

Translation

Would some body pleaze translate "Mind's Eye" into greek, both in the greek characters and a transliteration. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.52.153 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In Ancient Greek (quite different from Modern Greek if that's what you're after), "mind" is νοος (noos) and "eye" is οφθαλμος (ophthalmos), so I believe "mind's eye" would be οφθαλμος νου (ophthalmos nou), using the genitive. —Keenan Pepper 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except that genitives usually (not always) precede what they modify, so νοῦ ὀφθαλμός is more likely. Even more likely is ὁ τοῦ νοῦ ὀφθαλμός with definite articles to mean "the mind's eye". —Angr 09:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is a word-for-word formulation; Angr's Greek is good—this exact phrase is found in the Corpus Hermeticum (also in the plural: eyes of the mind; comparisons between nous and ophthalmoi, mind and eyes, & their roles, can be found elsewhere). My interest would be in a Greek equivalent as used by a Classical author. What comes to mind first is Aristotle's discussion of perception (De Anima), where he uses the term phantasmata for the mental images that appear to the mind's eye. Thus the faculty is called φαντασία, phantasia (follow the external links for complete lexicon entries showing the whole range of usage for an Ancient Greek word). (The other Greek word worth looking at in this connection is θεωρία, theōria, since its meaning was extended from being a spectator visually to contemplation & speculation.) If your point in asking about the Greek characters is to inscribe it as a motto somewhere, you may wish to use all caps: ΦΑΝΤΑΣΙΑ (and ΘΕΩΡΙΑ and Ο ΤΟΥ ΝΟΥ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΣ). Wareh 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Format for Dates

Is it proper or improper ... ambiguous or unambiguous ... acceptable or unacceptable ... conventional or unconventional ... correct or incorrect ... to express a calendar date in the following format?

• 2007-08-03 to represent August 3, 2007

The reason that I ask is this. When we have several dates written in the first format, those dates can easily be sorted (in numerical or "alphabetical" order) so that the dates are listed in a chronological order. When we attempt to sort dates written in the second format, the chronology is incorrect in that (for example) April 1, 1999 would sort before November 1, 1862 -- which is correct alphabetically, but incorrect chronologically. And, furthermore, to make matters worse ... something like April 20, 1888 would sort before April 3, 1888 as the computer sorts the "2" in "April 20" before the "3" in "April 3". Any insight? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

I'd say that, depending on the context, it can be proper, acceptable, conventional and correct. But it is certainly ambiguous. It could be taken to refer to either 3 August 2007 or 8 March 2007. -- JackofOz 04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is certainly ambiguous, how can it also be proper, acceptable, conventional, and correct? What context would satisfy that? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It is the ISO 8601 standard.--K.C. Tang 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In a context where the format is specified, such as a computer application where all dates need to be in the same format, and assuming this is the required format, it would satisfy all your 5 criteria. But where the format is not explained, it's clearly ambiguous. If I read in a newspaper "Joe Bloggs blew his brains out on 2007-08-03", I'd be unsure which date was meant. -- JackofOz 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be. The year-first format is the only numbers-only format I consider unambiguous. 2007-08-03 definitely means 2007-08-03. It's the two year-last formats that are ambiguous. When I see 08-03-2007 (or with other punctuation as a separator, like 08.03.2007 or 08/03/2007) I don't know whether August 3 or 8 March is meant. —Angr 09:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the bloody Americans didn't insist on writing their dates in the wrong order, as opposed to a sensible and logical progression via order of magnitude from day to month to year, then there wouldn't be any ambiguity. 80.254.147.52 13:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to get NPOV POV about it. The "bloody American" system is very logical because it matches the most common way of saying dates in North America. Now of if only the bloody British would say their dates the right way... :-) but never mind, that's why we have ISO 8601. --Anon, 13:52 UTC, Oct. 3.

I assume you mean "no need to get non-NPOV" about it. But in this case, as with all the other bloody-minded things Americans do unlike everyone else on the planet (like avoiding the metric system), it's the Brits' fault the Americans do it this way. Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, the British also wrote "October 3, 1707" and not "3 October 1707". So if the Brits had just adopted "a sensible and logical progression via order of magnitude" a few centuries earlier, we wouldn't be in this mess. —Angr 14:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I meant POV. There. Sorry, I was in a hurry to get to an appointment. --Anon, 2007-10-04, 00:41 UTC.

Any source for that claim, Angr? Robinson Crusoe, for example, writes "I went on board in an evil hour, the 1st of September, 1650" - day, month, year. And that was published in 1719. 80.254.147.52 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox. --LarryMac | Talk 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack, it's true that someone determined to find ambiguity can find it anywhere, but does anyone in the world in fact use the form yyyy-dd-mm? —Tamfang 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, Tamfang. That's why I said "if" I read this expression in a newspaper. You could just as well direct your query to Joseph. I assumed his question was not simply about how things are done in Wikipedia but in a wider context - otherwise the question belongs at Wikipedia:Help. -- JackofOz 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK yyyy-dd-mm is the standard order in East Asia (in Japan, today is 2007年10月4日 -- well, by now it's 2007年10月5日 there, but you see my point). —Angr 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's yyyy-mm-dd, of which I was already aware when I asked about yyyy-dd-mm. —Tamfang 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up / Clarification

I ask my question in the context of a Wikipedia article: Is it proper or improper ... ambiguous or unambiguous ... acceptable or unacceptable ... conventional or unconventional ... correct or incorrect ... to express a calendar date in the following formats? The first chart looks more normal and understandable, recognizable and standard -- but it cannot sort correctly. The second chart looks odd and unconventional (possibly meaningless or confusing to many) -- but it can sort correctly. Thoughts? Input? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 12:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Number	President	Date of Birth	Date of Death	Date Term Began	Date Term Ended
1	George Washington	February 7, 1983	March 15, 1876	December 6, 2007	May 1, 1937
2	Abraham Lincoln	November 27, 1804	April 15, 2000	January 16, 1973	September 17, 2008
3	John F. Kennedy	June 5, 2004	August 30, 1982	October 9, 1962	July 23, 1837

Number	President	Date of Birth	Date of Death	Date Term Began	Date Term Ended
1	George Washington	1983-02-07	1876-03-15	2007-12-06	1937-05-01
2	Abraham Lincoln	1804-11-27	2000-04-15	1973-01-16	2008-09-17
3	John F. Kennedy	2004-06-05	1982-08-30	1962-10-09	1837-07-23

If you wikify the dates, they will appear for logged-in users however the user has set to view dates in their preferences. So typing [[2007-10-03]] appears as 2007-10-03 and still sorts properly. —Angr 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia Manual of Style --LarryMac | Talk 13:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

yyyy-mm-dd makes most sense because it is the big endian system that we use in our numbers too. Take the year 1987. That's 1 millennium, 9 centuries, 8 decades and 7 years. Ever smaller. So it makes most sense to continue after that with months and days. And after that with hours, minutes and seconds, which is usually done like yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss. The much used little-endian system (dd-mm-yyyy) makes some sense 'internally', but not compared with how we otherwise use numbers. The middle-endian system used in the US makes no sense whatsoever, and only works if everyone agrees to use it.

I've been using the yymmdd on my computer for several years now for files or directories for which it matters when they were made, such as my photographs, precisely for the sorting-advantage it gives. Note that I shorten the year bit to just two figures because I happen to have started doing this at the beginning of a century. I've written some more about this sort of thing on my user page. DirkvdM 07:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it makes more sense -- precisely for the reasons you cite and for the sorting capability. However, that being said ... it doesn't make much sense at all if a notation such as 2007-08-03 is confusing or meaningless to the reader. In the latter case, it is communicating no information or, at least, no useful / meaningful information. That is the gist of my original question. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

In that case, there is no other solution than to always use the full name of the month. But I agree with Jack that if you put the year first, then it is obviously not one of the two most used systems, so it has to be done for a logical reason. And since yyyy-dd-mm would be really silly, it is obvious to the intelligent reader that yyyy-mm-dd is meant. Alas, very few people are intelligent. DirkvdM 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite convinced that the format (2005-08-03) has caused blunderings, though it should not have, merely owing to Murphy's law.--K.C. Tang 04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, I do the same in various logs, with a slight refinement: I use just one character for the month, {123456789abc}. —Tamfang 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not {1234567890ab}? The 0 for October would be helpful. Actually, why not {ab1234567890}? Then, the numbers in september october, november and december make more sense. Now, I always have to add two (september is the ninth month, not the seventh). If you use your own system you can do whatever you like. Also more fun if it confuses anyone snooping through your files. :) DirkvdM 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My way sorts properly. (I could write a special sort program, but why?) —Tamfang 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course, numbers before letters. Silly me. I have, however, encountered programs that sort letters before numbers. Can't remember which, though. DirkvdM 08:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to ALL for your input. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Norwegian Dialects

In http://books.google.com/books?id=CPX2xgmVe9IC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=%22middle+norwegian%22&source=web&ots=IJVj3Zzc-U&sig=_uSbhtzkjboI_XuW9brgk7eGau8#PPA337,M1, it says "Runic writing survived into the 18th c. in archaic communities such as Oppdal (and the neighbouring region in Sweden)....". I was wondering which are the other archaic communities and where is other "...neighbouring region in Sweden"? Thanks.70.74.35.53 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't help with the first question. The regions in Sweden nearest to Oppdal are Jämtland and Härjedalen. --62.16.173.45 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles is referring to Dalarna and Dalecarlian runes. Haukur 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

meaning

whatis the meaning of abstemious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.116.169 (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a peek here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstemious. Lanfear's Bane 08:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Subject / Verb Agreement: Singular or Plural

Let's say that a person has to do two (or more) different / separate / distinct things. I would think that that would call for plurality -- a plural subject with the appropriate (plural, not singular) verb form. In the following sentences, which is correct -- the plural or the singular ... and why? They all sound correct to me. But, grammatically, shouldn't one be correct and the other incorrect? If not, why not? Thanks.

• Make sure to bring your driver's license and a credit card. Those are the requirements.
• Make sure to bring your driver's license and a credit card. That is the requirement.
• The requirements are to bring your driver's license and a credit card.
• The requirement is to bring your driver's license and a credit card.
• -
• Place your signature, date of birth, and social security number on this form. Those are the requirements.
• Place your signature, date of birth, and social security number on this form. That is the requirement.
• The requirements are to place a, b, and c on this form.
• The requirement is to place a, b, and c on this form.
• -
• Pick up some milk and drop off the laundry. These are very important.
• Pick up some milk and drop off the laundry. This is very important.
• They are very important to my schedule.
• This is very important to my schedule.
• -

I'm getting confused. Help. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Both the singular and the plural forms are correct. Which to use is a question of emphasis. If you want to emphasize the two items as separate requirements or imperatives, then you use the plural form, which indicates that each is a separate requirement. On the other hand, there could be a single requirement to bring two or three documents or to perform more than one errand. If you want to emphasize that both or all items are part of a single requirement, then you use the singular form. In your last set of examples, "This is very important" indicates "The request that I have made is very important", whereas "These are very important" indicates "The items that I have requested are very important. Marco polo 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first two use a pronoun for a subject. The pronoun and verb have to agree in number, and they do, so the grammar is OK. Any difference lies only in the meaning of "requirement", which I think is better in the singular. The requirement is to bring a set of things, and so the third fourth sentence is unexceptionable. The fourth third is wrong. "To bring" is an infinitive acting as a predicate nominative to "requirements". Number does not agree; there would have to be another predicate nominative for the plural subject, as in "The requirements are to bring your driver's license and a credit card, and to wear a tam-o'-shanter."

Your second set has similar problems. I don't like "requirements" referring to the individual items. I can't call it wrong to use "requirements" that way, but I think it is.

The first two in the third set are both correct enough grammatically. They differ in the antecedents to their pronouns. "This" refers to an unnamed thing, a set of errands defined in the previous sentence. I see no problem. "These" refers either to milk and laundry or to the picking up and dropping off of them, grammatically speaking. That ambiguity makes the sentence faulty semantically. Pronouns are wriggly. If I understand right, the last two sentences are meant to follow "Pick up some milk and drop off the laundry." If so, the same applies to "it" and "they" in them. --Milkbreath 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As already mentioned, both forms of the above examples will work, and the difference is in the semantics of the sentence. You can use punctuation to help clarify meaning; for example, in the first sentence, I would write, "Make sure to bring your driver's license, and a credit card. Those are the requirements." That way, the reader knows I am listing two items, hence "those". In the second sentence, I would write, "Make sure to bring your driver's license and credit card. That is the requirement." By removing the indefinite article in front of "credit card", you combine both items into one requirement. I would apply the same reasoning to the third and fourth sentences. This way, the fourth sentence is not necessarily wrong as you are again creating one requirement by combining the two items. --Jclu 15:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I messed up (see strikeouts above). I meant that the sentence "The requirements are to bring your driver's license and a credit card" is wrong. We're talking about grammar here, not communication. One could say that sentence aloud and not cause a single raised eyebrow, but it's not grammatical. "The requirements are your driver's license and a credit card" would be. --Milkbreath 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the best alternative is "Bring your driver's license and a credit card" without "requirements" or otherwise "It is required to bring your driver's license and a credit card." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.148.109 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably more idiomatic to say "You are required to bring ...". -- JackofOz 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to all for the helpful input. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

run a tight ship

Where did this statment/phrase originate

BMR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.246.223 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it as "taut ship", but, as always, Google has me in the miniscule minority. I'll go out on a limb here and say it is nautical in origin and refers to not letting the sails luff too much or not having slack ropes flopping around. --Milkbreath 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:) Google also has you in the minority for "miniscule" (2.7 mill) versus "minuscule" (5 mill), but I imagine the "mini-" spelling will become accepted at some time down the track. -- JackofOz 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No smileys needed, unless there's one for kicking me in the pants. I hate it when I do that. I'm a better speller than my orthography would indicate, you know. --Milkbreath 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He he. I like it. I'm going to add it to my list of favourite quotes. -- JackofOz 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reporting for duty"

What does that military-associated expression mean? --Taraborn 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty straightforward dictionary definition, as best I can tell. Reporting (verb 2) for duty is showing up and presenting oneself to a superior as per orders. — Lomn 22:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I thought it could be something more complex. Thanks. --Taraborn 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing worth adding about this expression is that it is (or in some armed forces was) mostly used as a standard way for a serviceman or woman to introduce himself or herself to a superior officer. "Corporal Jones reporting for duty, sir" is much more military than "Er, hello, sir, here I am, I'm Corporal Jones, by the way". Xn4 23:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He, he, that was funny :) --Taraborn 08:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Endings-ish

Is it just by chance development of language or some rule I don't know about that defines adjectival suffixes (and what are they actually called anyway)? It's just idle moments when I wonder why things aren't Shakespearesque, we don't speak Spanese or eat a Chinan take-away that make me ask. Theediscerning 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In some ways, there are chance processes going on, but the way such a new adjective turns out has a lot to do with the moment when the word is first needed and who needs it... and does it come upwards from the vernacular speech or move downwards from Latin or French? For instance, 'Spanish' is a word with medieval Anglo-Saxon origins, like 'English', 'Scottish', 'Irish', and 'Danish', formed with a Germanic suffix, whereas 'Moldovan' wasn't needed until much later and followed the pattern that geographical names ending in an a form an adjective by adding -n, as in the Romance languages. Sometimes, more than one form of a new adjective comes into being, but almost always one of them drives the other(s) out, because the arbiters of language somehow form a consensus on which form is most correct. Who do I mean by 'arbiters of language'? It used to be scholars, later it was newspapers, now it's more likely to be broadcasters. Xn4 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was pondering this a few days ago. I think -ese is from Latin -ensis, and tends to follow nasals (Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, Taiwanese, Viennese, Pekinese), though there are exceptions (Genovese) and it is worth pointing out that most of those are East Asian (though Korean, Siberian, Laotian are counterexamples).--Estrellador* 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

SOED confirms that -ese derives from Lat. ensem (ultimately), and distinguishes between

• "belonging to, originating in" [a town or country] and
• connected with [an author]: Carlylese, hence journalese (and officialese and quite a few others)

I'm not sure about the nasal and the Asian connection: Portuguese and Senegalese come to mind.

Bessel Dekker 03:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese follows the French "portuguais" and "Senegalese" follows "senegalais". To be consistent, it should have been "senegais", though. As for the others, it is hard for an adjective of nationality to be anything else than -n when the country name is -(vowel)a, thus Korea: Korean, Samoa: Samoan (Genovese is from Italian Genova, not the traditional English rendering of Genoa) Croatia: Croatian, Papua: Papuan, even Sahara: Saharan. SaundersW 08:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But Florida – Floridian.  --Lambiam 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And Canada - Canadian. And formerly, Texas - Texian. —Angr 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

True: -ese usually follows the French -ais, and in Italian derivatives seems to come straight from the Italian (Genovese, Veronese etc.). Bessel Dekker 11:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to learn from all of the above, but perhaps it's an example of me posting the question too late at night when all I could think of were country-based examples. I'm just as interested in other adjectives, so why Romanesque and not Romanese? ... and many more I've blanked on.

It's interesting that the French "romanesque" can in certain contexts be translated in English as "romantic", the English term "romanesque" corresponds (at least in the architectural history context) as "roman", which also as a noun means "novel" in the literary sense, and the English adjective "Roman" translates into French as "romain".

I also thought once I posted originally that the French -ais and the Germanic -isch (and English -ish) were from the same source so the differences might not be meaning as much as my query implies. But at least I raised a discussion. Theediscerning 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)