Language desk
< November 10	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 12 >

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.

November 11[edit]

Querer[edit]

why does Querer mean "to try" in the past tense?Buckmyfutt (talk)

From (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/querer) - it is from latin quaerere (seek, look for, desire). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you saw... What language are you talking about? There are three of them on that list, Galician, Portuguese, and Spanish. --Falconus^{p t c} 20:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly in Spanish classes, students are taught that querer in the preterit is translated as "tried." Personally, I hate when it's explained like that, because it only leads to confusion like what the OP is experiencing. So, to set the record straight, querer never means "try"; Spanish has other words for that (e.g. tratar (de), intentar). However, since the preterit tense represents non-repetitive actions in the past, figuratively translating querer in the preterit (quise, quisiste, etc.) as "tried" is acceptable. In English, consider "I wanted to show off and bench 300 pounds, but it was too heavy." Couldn't you substitute the word wanted in that sentence with tried and it would have the same meaning? This is what leads to that Spanish translation of querer. It's supposed to give students an idea of the difference between imperfect and preterit, but I don't like it taught that way because the translation pret. querer --> "tried" doesn't always work, and above all, is more confusing than informative.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

use of word "squat" as in "squatted by the homeless"[edit]

I am doing a GA review on the article Skinner's Room. The editor has used the sentence: "In the story, the Bridge is overrun and squatted by the homeless...". I know what he means, but does not the word "squat" need a preposition, like "squatted on"? Or is this an accepted way to use the word "squatted", as in "My property was squatted by me."? Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try to rephrase the sentence to use either the agentive noun "squatter" or the verbal noun "squatting" rather than the verb "squat". In this particular meaning, the verb is really a back formation from those two nouns. —An gr 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big dictionaries list "squat" in the sense of lingering on a piece of property illegally as a verb and they use prepositions: i.e. That homeless guy will probably squat in the abandoned store. I would rather not use squat in its verb form if I could call the subjects "squatters" instead. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...the Bridge is overrun by squatters" avoids duplication because a squatter is homeless/a homeless person. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, squatters, if successful, have found themselves a home! There are some very long-term squatters in London and other towns and cities in the UK, as evidenced by this article. I have seen TV news reports before now showing that squatters can lead pretty normal lives, save their domestic circumatances.GBViews (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squat is also used as a noun, meaning a place occupied by squatters. So "The building was squatted" could derive from "the building was used as a squat."

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/squat.html

CBHA (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While rightly using the sense of taking over unofficially, perhaps inadvertently emphasises the lack of normal toilets as well? Another travelling verb/neologism... Julia Rossi (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin help[edit]

I need a title meaning "British history" but is must include the word "Britannicum" (NOT britannica, britanniae)! Thanks! --217.227.81.97 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin was 8 years ago, but I think you want "history" in the accusative (or is it nominative?) declension followed by british in the genetive declension. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominative and Genitive are cases, not declensions... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you could do it three ways. "History of the Britons" ("Historia Britannorum"), "History of Britain" ("Historia Britannia") or "British History" ("Historia Britannica"). --Falconus^{p t c} 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Britain should be Historia Britanniae... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you absolutely need "Britannicum" you could use "Chronica Britannicum" ("chronica" looks feminine but it is a Greek neuter). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all Greek to me! But seriously, how to you mean Greek? Is your version (the best so far) still Latin? --217.227.83.122 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it was borrowed from Greek, and used as a regular Latin word. I don't know Greek very well but it may be plural and the singular may be chronicon, which was also borrowed in Latin and was sometimes Latinized as chronicum. I'm pretty sure they're all neuter though. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "chronica" is neuter plural, then it would be "Chronica Britannica". Few neuters end in "-a" in the nominative/accusative singular, other than those ending in "-ma" (stem "-mat-"). AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose in Latin it was sometimes assumed to be a (Latin) neuter plural, as in the Chronica Maiora. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also should point out that the way Latin works, "Britannicum" is the same word as "Britannica" and "Britannicus". Because "Historia" is feminine, you must make it agree since it is an adjective, and therefore must use the "a" ending. In English we have to make our nouns and adjectives agree in number only (you can't say "I have three dog"), in Latin you have to make them agree in number, gender and case. --Falconus^{p t c} 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Chronica Regnum Britannicum correct too then? --217.227.80.215 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No -- that's two separate phrases (Chronica == "chronicles", Regnum Britannicum == "the British kingdom") sitting side by side with no relationship between the two indicated (since both are in the nominative or accusative case, and apposition would not be meaningful). To indicate a relationship, Regnum Britannicum would have to be in some other case (e.g. Historia Regni Britannici, genitive case). It might be possible to use a preposition governing the accusative (Historia ob Regnum Britannicum, whatever that would mean, etc.), but it would be rather awkward. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To revert to the original question, could you please explain why it has to be Britannicum rather than something more natural such as Britannica, Britanniae etc? This might help to find an answer to your question. Maid Marion (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]