Language desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

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 8

Speaking in "jargon" versus "plain english" (requesting examples)

Once I read an article about how the terminology, slang and idioms of a statement can entirely reverse or upend the expectations and meaning attached to the message by the hearer.

For example, one person billed himself as a "hacker" and talked about how he was going to monitor a system for its security attributes, but he used "hacker" terminology, and the message sounded strange. Then the article presented the same exact message, but this time using the jargon and terminology of a "security analyst".

Question: Do you have links to examples of how the same message in "jargon" can sound one way, but when spoken in "plain english" or "professional speak" it can sound a totally different way? NoClutter (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning a language and age

Is there an age in which you cannot learn foreign languages anymore? --Quest09 (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Critical Period Hypothesis for full discussion of this question. Basically, there certainly seems to be an age (somewhere between 5 and 10 years old) past which you cannot acquire native proficiency in a language, but there is probably no age beyond which you are incapable of learning at least something of a foreign language. +An gr 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My OR would support the latter statement. I had a group of seniors learning English. A 50 year old saying it was difficult because she was "too old" was outperformed in every class by an 82 year old student. Ability and success rates are highly individual. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permissible names worldwide

I seem to remember reading that in a particular country (perhaps Argentina?) there was at one point a list of government-approved names from which parents had to choose their children's names. Can someone corroborate this and/or link me to a page that would explain more? My memory is fuzzy right now. Thank you! --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not a terribly rare situation. Certainly at one time in Germany, there was a list of government-approved names from which you could name your child (during the Nazi era, all "Jewish-sounding" first names were removed from the list), and it's still the case that the Standesamt has the power to approve or deny a parent's choice of first name. I think it's similar in other European countries as well. +An gr 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of much information about the topic are linked in this previous ref-desk thread. Deor (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thank you very much! (In retrospect, it might have been the proposed Venezuelan law I was thinking of.)--Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on Central Morocco Tamazight, Berber names aren't permitted in Morocco since the list of permitted names is largely composed of Arab names. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read in a newspaper a while ago that all children born in Spain would have to have family names along the Spanish 'Father's last name-Mother's last name' formula, regardless of the cultural background of the parents. see Spanish naming customs. --Soman (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations for Latin books, especially editions of the Vulgate

Hi, I'm interested in broadening my collection of Latin books (both for learning and for reading). I'm probably about "level 1" on the wiki-Babel scale, but heading towards level 2. My main reading interests are Virgil, Ovid, Plautus and Terence, and also the Vulgate. I've been looking online at the following books, and am curious about whether anyone has any opinions to offer on them: A Comprehensive Guide to Wheelock's Latin by Dale A. Grote, A Vergil Workbook by Katherine Bradley, and A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin by John F. Collins.

More importantly, I don't own a copy of the Vulgate. Can anyone recommend a good version? There is one from Amazon, edited by Gryson, Fischer, Frede, Sparks, and Thiele, 1980 pages. Does anyone own this, and do they recommend it, or some other edition? My preferences for the Vulgate are, in order: must include punctuation (some versions don't, as per the original - strange but true), must be hardcover, preferably not in the two-columns-per-page format, preferably with scholarly apparatus like footnotes covering the various manuscripts/ textual problems, and preferably with all the apocrypha (and maybe a nice introductory chapter).

Any advice on these concerns is greatly appreciated, including of course, general further comments from people who have been there, and have advice or other book recommendations. Regards, It's been emotional (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own a copy of the edition you saw at Amazon. It is hardcover, includes textual apparatus at the bottom of the pages, and includes the books that the Protestant tradition classifies as Apocrypha. However, the text is unpunctuated (though the setting of it per cola et commata really obviates the need for punctuation—I don't think you'd have any trouble construing it); the text is laid out in double columns; and although there's a brief preface dealing mainly with editorial practices, there's no "nice introductory chapter." Whether it meets your needs is for you to decide. Deor (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the usual edition of the Vulgate, I own it too (in fact, everyone I know with a Vulgate has that same one). The lack of punctuation is really not a problem, the Vulgate is relatively simple Latin (all punctuated Latin is pretty artificial anyway...they used words as punctuation). I think the standard edition of Virgil is by R.A.B. Mynors, but as usual for that series ([[Oxford Classical Texts]), everything is in Latin, including the introduction and notes, so you probably won't want that yet. The Loeb Classical Library publishes editions with facing-page English translations, if that helps. A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin is a good textbook, but not for classical Latin; it will help you with the Vulgate though (and medieval Latin, which is related). Do you have Wheelock's Latin? Using a guide like Grote's is okay if you're having trouble with Wheelock itself. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much to both of you for the advice (and thanks in advance for any further answers). It's been emotional (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Adam, yes, I do have Wheelock's, and I used it to get out of the real beginner's ranks, but it just isn't comprehensive. The problem I have is not with Wheelock's itself, but with confronting actual texts afterwards (including when the texts use forms that I know from Wheelock's, but not with confidence). Hence the purpose of considering Grote's is to get more practice with the basics. Have you actually used Grote's (in teaching or in learning)? It's been emotional (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used Grote's, I've just flipped through it; when I learned from Wheelock, we used the accompanying "38 Latin stories" book. I understand what you mean, it's hard to go from Wheelock to an actual Latin text, as if Wheelock (or his later editors) didn't want you to understand anything but what they put in their own textbook. I didn't find it helpful for learning to read poetry like Virgil and Ovid, but I was able to pick up easier prose like Caesar. (I never took the Latin Poetry class my university offered, so I'm not sure what textbook they used, if any.) I'm not sure what advice to give for Plautus and Terence, they're earlier than strictly "Classical" Latin, and are much more colloquial (even now I still find them way too hard to read). Have you considered a smaller grammar book, which will give the basics, and all the charts etc, in a more compact form than Wheelock? Have you tried all the extra exercises at the end of Wheelock? They start off easy and get progressively harder, I found them helpful. Once you feel you have a good grasp of the basic grammar, the best way to keep learning is really just to start reading as much Latin as you can. Start with something relatively simple like De Bello Gallico, and a dictionary, and just hammer away at it! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, as to the NT, I love the two-volume Nestle-Aland edition, Novum Testamentum Graece & Latine. Just a detail to let you know the accuracy. The numbering of pages corresponds exactly, but the Greek text (blue cover) has the even numbers on the left, while the Latin (green cover) has them on the right. So, when comparing the two versions, you can bring the corresponding pages close to each other, without overlapping the two books. (btw, is this a peculiarity of these books, or is it customary of comparative editions?)--pma (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in touch with current Latin pedagogy, but one thing we used when I was learning was the two volumes of D. P. Lockwood's Survey of Classical Roman Literature (apparently out of print now, but easy to obtain used copies of). It consists of representative passages from all periods, with lexical and grammatical notes to clarify the hard bits, and I found it useful in getting over the hump between primer exercises and "real" texts. I'm sure there are similar, more modern works available, but I unfortunately don't know what they are. Deor (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the advice. I'm glad to know others find Plautus and Terence hard. Terence in particular convinces me that no Latin sentence ever really means anything, but somehow translators have come up with something that sounds good (to them at least), and managed to agree on the English version enough to keep up the ruse. I've recently discovered for myself the essential importance of reading Latin, using proper texts, and just hammering away. You pick up a language by using it: either in reading, writing or speaking. In Latin, the only practical option is the first, especially for private study, so you just have to go for it. Hence my interest in the Vulgate: it's just barely within my limits, so I'm just ploughing on (with a library copy until my newly ordered one arrives). Also, for pma: I expect it's a convention to make page numbers correspond. The Loeb books do this, although the originals and the translations are not in separate editions. It's been emotional (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sit mihi fas audita loqui, sit numine vestro

Hi, can someone please tell me how this line from Virgil works, grammatically speaking? I know the translation, but I can't quite figure out the use of the subjunctive, for example. Is it jussive subjunctive, meaning "let it be so"? And are the two clauses beginning with "sit" essentially paired in some way, or do they just introduce separate ideas? thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar I usually refer to (Gildersleeve and Lodge) calls this the "optative subjuctive," but you have the basic sense right—"may it be permitted for me to tell …" or, more idiomatically, "grant that I may tell …" I'm not sure what you mean by "essentially paired." The clauses are parallel in construction ("sit loqui" and "sit pandere," with "mihi fas" understood in the second one) and express clearly related ideas (telling the things heard and revealing the things seen); did you have some other sort of connection in mind? Deor (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I meant "paired" in the sense of parallel construction. It's been emotional (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic languages

I was searching for the Czech, Slovak, Slovene and Croatian translations (if they exist) of the German given names Siegfried and Gottfried (Jeffrey/Geoffrey). --151.51.24.229 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Czech, there exists an archaic adaptation of Siegfried as Žibřid, but it's no longer in use (apart from surnames). Normally Siegfried and Gottfried would be left unchanged. If you really mean to translate the meaning of the words making up the name, you can use Bohumír for Gottfried, but I'm not aware of any equivalent of Siegfried. — Emil J. 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gottfried would be Bogomir in Slovene. By analogy, Siegfried would be Zmagomir, ~~but that name seems odd and is by now seriously antiquated, if it ever existed at all.~~ Scratch that, did a quick google search, and it appears there are 10 Zmagomirs in Slovenia: http://www.stat.si/eng/imena_redko_imena_crke.asp?crka=Z TomorrowTime (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Slavomir" is a common (modestly frequent) West and South Slavic name which could be an equivalent of Siegfried. It comes from "glory"+"peace" rather than "victory"+"peace" though. No usual Slavic name that I know of contains "victory".
Note that "Bogomir", "Slavomir", "Miroslav" and similar Slavic names arose independently (i.e. as permutations of words like "glory", "love", "peace", "god"...) rather than as translations of Western or Biblical names (as far as I know). Thus the names we offer are rather "friends" than "translations" in the strict sense. No such user (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permutations on "zmaga" (victory) are nothing unheard of in Slovene - there's the fairly rare Zmagoslav and the above mentioned almost nonexistant Zmagomir, and the by far more common shortening into Zmago. This doesn't mean the name is anything close to common (the above linked statistics site lists 155 Zmagoslavs and 298 Zmagos, both of which account for a staggering 0.0% of the population) but then, having a top level politician with the name Zmago does make the name well known. There's apparently even a rare (and thorougly weird sounding) female version: Zmaga. Most of these Victory girls were born in the years between 1941 and 1960, heh. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather, however, that "zmaga" is one of (numerous) Slovenian words without a living true friend in other Slavic languages (not sure how "victory" reads in Western Slavic, but I doubt it's *zmag-). I assume it's a cognate to Serbo-Croatian "smoći" < "moći" (can) < "mog'ti"? The fact that its root zmag- is monosyllabic makes it suitable to form personal names, which cannot be said for Serbo-Croatian "pobed-". No such user (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for West Slavic languages, victory is vítězství in Czech, zwycięstwo in Polish. — Emil J. 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That apparently comes from *vitez (knight) < *vitegь < Old Germanic *vitingas. Serbo-Croatian false friend is "viteštvo" (knighthood). Funny how the borrowings and false friends work... But I strayed off-topic. No such user (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second vowel has to be nasal, *vitęgь, otherwise you couldn't explain the Polish form. This is in fact consistent with your Old Germanic etymology. — Emil J. 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such user: yes, Slovene does have its quirks. If I were a bonehead nationalist, I'd try to use this as some ephemeral explanation about how Slovene was in some way special (trust me, idiots like that are far too common for comfort around here), but I believe in equality of languages and find your and Emil's comments fascinating - yes, it's most likely that the ethymology of "zmaga" is "smoći" (I'd have to consult my ethymology dictionary, but I don't have it handy), and I didn't know until now that *vitez (incidentaly, remaining as such, i.e.: "vitez" in Slovene) is originaly German. Not that it surprises me, though. Ethymology is a fascinating field. Incidentaly, there has been a recent developement in the spoken Slovene language, where people use the verb "zmagati" to mean "I've done it", that is: "I managed it", which would seem like a coincidental reversal to the proto-Slavic root you mentioned :) TomorrowTime (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...however, we seem to have been lulled by folk etymology. Namely, according to notes in article Vladimir (name), referenced to Max Vasmer, the "-mir" in Slavic names does not come from "mir" ('peace'), but is a cognate of Gothic -mērs, meaning ("great", "famous"). Ergo, it isn't a translation of "-fried". Still, "Slavomir" and "Bogomir" nicely rhyme :)... No such user (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in some pretty ancient names such as Kazimir "the disruptor of the peace", Mutimir, Gojmir, Mojmir it's obvious that the meaning of "peace" was preserved :) Furthermore, this variant -měrъ could easily be inherited from PIE, and not borrowed from Gothic, as the cognate suffix in name-forming also meaning "great" can also be found in Greek and Celtic.. But at any case, the old -měrъ was ousted by -mir very early (the old suffix being fossilized in rare toponyms such as Črnomerec), and such -mir started to denote a quality of the named person in newer formations (the noun or adjective being the first part of such compound). To further complicate this issue, this -mir was also later (when there were separate Slavic languages/dialects) folk-etymologized from time to time in the meaning of "peace".. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expiration date

Is an expiration date the last day that something is good, or the first day that it is no good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.159.237 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For coupons in the United States in my experience it's the last day they're good.—msh210℠ 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the expiration date is the day when something is still guaranteed to be good. After that, it could still hold for a day or for a month, but either way you're on your own when consuming it. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP might not be talking about food - for vouchers and suchlike, the dates are firm, but whether that's the last day you can use it or the first day you can't...I dunno. Ask whatever organisation accepts the vouchers. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar question last month. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking actual contractual effect -- it will depend on the terms of the contract but the ordinary meaning seems to be that the "expiry date" is the last day on which the thing is good.

Cf Interprations Acts in Commonwealth countries. In Australia, the Acts Interpretations Act prescribes that where something is expressed to occur "from" a date, or the date of some event, that date is excluded. That is, the thing starts occurring from the next day. If we analogise that, then if something "expires" from/on some date, it is no good from the next day.

If this is actually a legal question, see a lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's confusing to try to reason from the meaning of something happening "from" a date. In normal British usage, and I presume Australian, something happening "from" a date begins on that date, and if Australia's interpretation act specifies otherwise, I'm surprised. But "from" is not normally used in connection with expiration. (In North America we don't usually use "from" with dates at all.)

In Canada, the Interpretation Act prescribes:

6. (1) Where an enactment is expressed to come into force on a particular day, it shall be construed as coming into force on the expiration of the previous day, and where an enactment is expressed to expire, lapse or otherwise cease to have effect on a particular day, it shall be construed as ceasing to have effect on the commencement of the following day.

so the expiry date is the last date that the act is applicable, and I too would say that that is the usual meaning.

On the other hand, expiry dates on food products here are often written withthe words "best before", thus indicating explicitly that the product is recommended to be opened/used before that date.

--Anonymous, 02:25 UTC, July 9, 2009.

On a related note, I've often seen products labelled with something like "best before end: <some date>". What is that supposed to mean? I can't even parse it: as a noun phrase, "best before end" would seem to be equivalent to "end of best before". — Emil J. 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I parse it as "Best before the end of...", especially when it's followed by just a month and year, with no date of the month. Thus "Best before end: 07/2009" would mean best before July 31, 2009. If it's followed by a complete date, I guess it would mean the end of that day, so "Best before end: 09/07/2009" would mean best before 23:59:59 on July 9, 2009 (or September 7, 2009, in the US). +An gr 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so the "end" refers to the end of the given time period. Thanks. — Emil J. 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it follows that "best before end: 07/2009" means best before August 1, 2009, not July 31. "Before August 1" means before midnight of July 31 / August 1. "Before July 31" means before midnight of July 30/31. Not that there is a practical difference when we're talking about products with a shelf life measured in months or longer, of course. --Anonymous, 19:42 UTC, July 9, 2009.

In the financial world the expiration date of an option is the latest day that it can still be exercised. The right may expire at the close of the day or at some earlier time determined by the contract. TheMathemagician (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]