Language desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 18 >

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.

July 17

Pronunciation of Bruegel

What is the source of the English pronunciation of Bruegel (as in Pieter Bruegel the Elder) as ['bɹɔɪ gəl]? Am I right that the Dutch pronunciation is more like ['bʀø: ɣəl]? Where does the English diphthong come in? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Dutch pronunciation is ['bʀø:ɣəl], as if it were spelled "Breugel". If you pronounce the latter using German rules, you get ['bʀɔʏɡəl], this may be where the English pronunciation comes from. — Emil J. 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put your thinking Caps on

Is it honorary degrees from the "Universities of Rochester and Miami" or "universities of Rochester and Miami"? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "honorary degrees from the University of Rochester and the University of Miami". Unless, of course, you mean the very different Miami University, in which case you would say "honorary degrees from the University of Rochester and Miami University". If something is ambiguous or unclear, there's no harm in rewording it to avoid the ambiguity. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press style would be to use a lower-case u when referring to two or more universities. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while back we had a similar question about street names, forms like "Elm and Pine streets/Streets". I cited the Chicago Manual of Style as saying that (as I expected) it should be "Streets", only to be told that in a later edition they had changed to requiring "street". I imagine they would say the same for this one. But it is completely contrary to my native-speaker instincts. For me it has to be "Universities of Rochester and Miami" and "Elm and Pine Streets" just as it has to be "John and Robert Kennedy" and not "John and Robert kennedy". If you say "universities of Rochester and Miami", to me this reads like a descriptive phrase and not a coalescing of two proper names. --Anonymous, 04:38 UTC, July 17, 2009.

Yeah, intuitively to me "universities of Rochester and Miami" implies you were qualified by some university in both of those cities, not specifically the named University of Rochester and University of Miami. In order to remove the possibility you were qualified by the Rochester University of Magic Beans and the Imaginary University of Miami; I'd definitely either capitalise the U or write out the full names of both explicitly. ~ mazca ^talk 09:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually falling out of love with initial caps, I think they make the sentence harder to read and plus they confer some kind of deferential respect which may not always be merited. With the advent of netspeak I think the idea that proper names have to take an initial capital is slowly withering away. I would write "the universities of Rochester and Miami". The words "the universities" are enough to make it clear to the reader that you are talking about the specific institutions. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are different cases we need to consider:

Use lower case when referring to:
- universities in general ("It is well known that universities are breeding grounds for ...") or
- unidentified specific universities ("I have degrees from many universities."), or
- one or more universities that have been previously identified but you're no longer needing to mention their names ("He went to Oxford. This university is well known for ..." - or "He went to Oxford and Cambridge. These two universities are among the ...")
Use upper case when referring to:
- a specific university ("My degree is from the University of Down Under."), or
- an abbreviated list ("He worked at the Universities of Sydney, Paris and London.", which is short for "He worked at the University of Sydney, the University of Paris and the University of London.").

The question fits into the last example, for my money.

Btw, I agree with Anonymous's answer but his "Kennedy" example is not much value, as surnames always take upper case initials, no matter what; whereas, "universities" will take upper or lower case, depending on the circumstances. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Jack, why are you so wedded to those initial capital Us in your last two examples? As I tried to argue above I think they are redundant, even when referring to a specific university. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard claimed that the capitalization of proper names is "withering" away. If richard really thinks that, he should write "the universities of rochester and miami". And I think anyone who does not accept that conclusion should not accept his logic as applying to the capitalization of "universities". Jack says "surnames always take upper case", but I argue that it's proper names that always take upper case and coalesceing them should not change this. But this is not a debate forum and I'll shut up now. --Anonymous, 19:04 UTC, July 17, 2009.

Yes, there's a difference between "He went to universities in Sydney, Paris and London" (which could mean any one of various educational establishments in each of those cities) and "He went to the Universities of Sydney, Paris and London" (which refers to specific universities). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that "He went to the universities of Sydney, Paris and London" is also unambiguous in referring to those specific universities. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely a question of avoiding ambiguity. "The u/Universities of" makes it clear exactly which places we're talking about, and the meaning stays the same whether the u is capitalised or not. But we're still using proper nouns because we're simply using a short-hand way of referring to the full name of each specific university in turn. That's my view, but as it's a question of style, you will find different styles out there and you should use whichever one applies to the context you're writing in, or whichever one you prefer where it's not mandated. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with "U", just to avoid any possible ambiguity. Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a native speaker of German who is used to long arguments about lower and upper case it is very interesting to see that you can do that in English too.--Zoppp (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchu Loanword, 帥

Is this Mandarin Chinese word, 帥, a loanword from the Manchu language? Pinyin is shuai and the word means handsome. Sonic99 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Nel 1440, all'età di sedici anni, Bianca di Aragona, il 16 di ottobre, sposò, nella cattedrale di Valladolid, l'erede al trono e futuro re di Castiglia e León, Enrico l'Impotente, figlio del re di Castiglia e León, Giovanni II (figlio del re di Castiglia e León Enrico III e di Caterina di Láncaster) e di Maria d'Aragona, figlia di Ferdinando I e di Eleonora d'Alburquerque (1374 - 1435). Enrico era anche fratellastro di Isabella I di Castiglia, la Cattolica.

Quando, nel 1451, scoppiò la guerra civile tra suo padre, Giovanni e suo fratello, Carlo, Bianca si schierò dalla parte del fratello e chiese allo suocero Giovanni II di Castiglia di aiutare il fratello, Carlo, che nel frattempo si era accordato col conestabile del regno di Castiglia, Álvaro de Luna.

Nel 1453, constatato che il matrimonio non aveva generato alcuna discendenza e constatato che non era stato ancora consumato (una visita ufficiale accertò che Bianca era ancora vergine, ma sembra che una indagine condotta a Segovia accertò che Enrico, l'erede al trono di Castiglia, con le altre donne fosse sessualmente abile), papa Niccolò V sciolse il legame per consanguineità (Enrico e Bianca erano cugini primi, il padre di Bianca, Giovanni era fratello di Maria, la madre di Enrico).

Sorry for the bad English:

In 1440, at the age of 16, Bianca of Aragon, 16 of October, married, in the cathedral of Valladolid, the heir of the throne and future king of Castilia and of the reign of Leon, Henry IV of Castilia, son of the king of Castilia and Leon John II (son of the king of Castilia and Leon Henry III and Caterina of Lancaster) and Maria of Aragon, dougther of Ferdinand I and Eleonora of Albuquerque (1374-1435). Henry was also the stepbrother of Isabella I of Castilia, the Catholic.

When, in 1431, the civil war exploded between her father John and her brother Charles, Bianca took the parts of her brother and asked her father-in-law John II of Castilia to help her brother, Charles, who, in the meantime, had agreed/accorded with the constable of the reign of Castilia, Alvaro de Luna.

In 1453, having known/noticed that wedding didn't provide any offspring and that it wasn't yet consummated (an official visit verified that Bianca was still a virgin, but it seems that an investigation in Segovia assessed that Henry, the heir of the throne of Castilia, was sexually expert/skilled with other women), Pope Nicholas V annulled the bond because of consanguinity (Henry and Bianca where first cousins, the father of Bianca, John, was the brother of Maria, the mother of Henry. --151.51.18.76 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trans. Ger>Eng

What does "keine macht mehr an" means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No one (specifically, no one female) anmachens more." Anmachen has a wide variety of meanings, several of them sexual, allowing for a good deal of double-entendre. It could mean "no one turns (people/men) on more" or "no one hits on (people/men) more", but it could also be more innocently "no one prepares more" or "no one dresses (salads) more". Keiner macht mehr an (using the masculine form of the pronoun) is the slogan of Almighurt yogurt made by Ehrmann AG; here the sense of dressing salad is probably one half of the double-entendre and "turning on"/"making excited" is the other half. +An gr 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure about the spelling I'd go with what Angr said. There are a couple of political slogans that go: keine Macht mehr an <other party> which would mean keep <other party> out of government. There's another possible interpretation/ double-entendre if you read "mehr" as "anymore". In that case it could mean "no one (no female) turns me on anymore". It really all depends on context. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hadn't even thought of Macht as a noun, but you're right: Keine Macht mehr an X means "No more power to X". +An gr 06:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keine Macht für Niemand (old Ton, Steine, Scherben song and slogan; intended as RAF propaganda).--Radh (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not-native English speakers

I know there's more not-native English speakers than native English speakers. But is it correct that most not-native English speakers in the British Commonwealth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.234 (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That most non-native English speakers in the British Commonwealth do what? +An gr 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Is it correct that most not-native English speakers live in the British Commonwealth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.234 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our English language article, the estimates for the number of non-native English speakers vary between 200 and 1400 million. Given this variation, it's rather unlikely that you can get a reliable answer to your question. — Emil J. 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, considering that four of the ten most populous countries in the world - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria - are in the Commonwealth of Nations and have far more non-native than native English speakers, it seems very plausible. +An gr 13:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh translation: "What's your name?" and "Are you hurt?"

(This isn't for anything important, so perfect accuracy isn't necessary)

How would I have a character say in Welsh - preferably in the northern dialect, though it's not too important - "What's your name?" and "Are you hurt?". Obviously, the person they're talking to is a stranger, so presumably it would use the formal form of "you". Laïka 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formal form for "What's your name" is Beth yw'ch enw chi?. I'll leave the other one to someone who knows more Welsh. (Or until I have a chance to look it up in a dictionary!) +An gr 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having looked in a dictionary I'm going to go with Gawsoch chi ddolur? for "Are you hurt?". More literally it's "Did you get hurt?" or "Did you hurt yourself?". +An gr 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Laïka 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to ¹, "What is your name?" is Beth ydy'ch enw chi?. The difference from Angr's form is just the verb 'ydy(w)' vs. 'yw', but they're more or less interchangeable in interrogative sentences.

I'm not a native Welsh speaker, but my impression is that Gawsoch chi ddolur? is a bit like "Have ye pain?" - rather archaic or literary. I would expect rather Mae niwed gennych chi? ('Is there hurt/injury with you?'). But, to repeat, IANANWS. --ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how formal you're going to be. With the normal contractions for conversational Welsh, I'd go for Be' 'dy'ch enw chi?, and maybe Ydy chi wedi brifo eich hun?, which would be more like "have you hurt yourself?". -- Arwel Parry (talk)

^1 Gunn, Marion (1994). Da Mihi Manum. Everson Gunn Teoranta. ISBN 1 899082 00 X. (an inter-Celtic phrasebook)

How should this be worded / styled

I figure this is more a reference desk question than a help desk one. I'm currently giving a makeover to the Kawartha Lakes articles. One of the things that caught me was that every township had a different lead. What I'm wondering is how the first sentence should read.

Right now I use:

The Township of X (Population: X c.1996) was a municipality located in the southwest corner of the former Victoria County, now the city of Kawartha Lakes, in the Canadian province of Ontario.

Is this correct? Could more be added (Area for example, or when it became Kawartha Lakes (Which is at this point mentioned in the history))? Or is there already too much going on there?

Thank you :) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Is it correct?" Well, it's grammatical and the meaning is clear. I don't know if the facts are correct as stated (i.e. that the whole of Victoria County became the city of Kawartha Lakes).

"Could more be added ... or is there already too much?" That calls for an opinion, which is not a proper Reference Desk question. It probably belongs on a talk page somewhere. So I won't point out that it would read better if the population was moved into a later sentence. --Anonymous, 19:12 UTC, July 17, 2009.

The whole county became Kawartha Lakes in 2001, as well as all the townships, incoporated/unincorporated villages and towns. What I meant to ask is if this is the correct styling for a wikipedia article's lead sentence? -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "could more be added to the single sentence?" The sentence seems a little long, although I know that it's hard sometimes to split up the thoughts into paragraphs properly. Probably best to add any more information in a separate section. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic mithology

I was reading a book about germanic mithology and I found these strange words: uhtsceada, hellsceada and leodsceada. They weren't exactly explained, but were related to legendary creatures in some way. I'd like to know what is their language of origin and what they actually mean. --151.51.18.76 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are old english / anglosaxon

sceada appears to mean injury/harm or enemy or criminal

hell-scaeda is translated as "hell-fiend"

leod seems to be related to men/people

uht seems to mean creature

I guess it's from this [1] - an anglosaxon poem telling the story of the fall of man - ie adam,eve, and serpent so I am guessing that they are refering to the devil/serpent.

ie "enemy of man" , "hell creature" , and "harmful creature"? - all to describe the devil - though I suppose the actual literary effect is mostly lost.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EC This looks to be Old Saxon [2] 250 Lautverwachsung und Lautabtrennung im Schweizerdeutscben or Old English uhtsceada meaning Dragon or attacker at dawn (uth was night or dawn) sceada s.th. like foe/attacker) <from [[Beowulf> "hellsceada" might be hell foe or hero, but the second l in hell doesn't quite seem right unless the final e from helle was dropped when combining nouns. leodsceada then would be "enemy of the people" /the devil [3] <from Cædmon [4] or [5]> (I think you might be reading "Deutsche Mythologie" by Jacob Grimm. That's heavy duty stuff. I hope you are aware that the brothers Grim were linguists, although they are best known for their collection of fairy tales. This book falls into the former category.)71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be from Cædmon manuscript (article) "Thematically and stylistically, too, it is distinctive: it tells the story of the falls of Satan and Man in an epic style.."- see section about Genesis then.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably from this source [6] page 941 bottom

hellscaeda and leodscaeda are from :

Translations are available eg [7] :

Close stood the evil
fiend, inflaming with desire, luring with wiles, and boldly tempting him. The fiend stood near at hand who on that fatal mission had come a long, long way. He planned to hurl men down to utter death, mislead them and deceive them, that they might lose the gift of God, His favour and their heavenly realm. Lo! well the hell-fiend knew they must endure God's anger and the pains of hell, suffer grim misery and woe, since they had broken God's commandment, when with his lying words he tricked the beauteous maid, fairest of women, unto that deed of folly, so that she spake according to his will; and aided her in tempting
unto evil the handiwork of God.[8]

Clearly they prefered to translate it as 'fiend'.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some places say uhtscaeda is from Beowulf - the dragon - but I can't find it. Lines 2272, 2761

Actually "A handy dictionary of anglo-saxon poetry, based on groschopp's grein" which you can find online gives 'scaede' as enemy or dragon - it might be worthwhile checking that book for the other words.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarise then

hellsceada and leodsceada are found in an anglo-saxon poem version of genesis - both refer to the serpent (the devil) that tempted adam and eve with the apple in the garden of eden - obvious translations are "hell-fiend" and "enemy of man" - a common name for satan. I'm sure about this.
uhtsceada is found in the anglosaxon poem beowulf and refers to the dragon which appears when a golden cup is stolen from the barrow, which beowulf then fights. It seems to mean "dawn-creature" or "dusk-creature" where creature is enemy/fiend etc. I'm not sure that this would have been a name for a dragon - it may be a literary effect - indicating the dragon - I think it may be related to stories connecting barrows with things happening at dawn or dusk - but I'm not sure about that. Someelse might be able to explain this better. It's not even clear to me that it's refering to the 'dragon' or if the 'dragon' was a conventional dragon, infact it looks like the 'dragon' at the end of beowulf is a "spirit who gaurds the burial mound" see Draugr - so I think it may mean "ghost", "undead" etc, or something else

83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Old English is rusty enough that I don't remember the exact meanings of these terms. However, considering the comments of previous users, you'd do well to check them out as kennings. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]