Language desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 17

Hell -Underworld

Hell different Underworld? I can't distinguish them--Lê (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the articles Hell and Underworld? Anyway, 'underworld' is really the more generic term. But since 'hell' is the more common expression, its often used interchangably. 'Underworld' is neutral, but 'hell' has strong negative connotations (and is a curse in many languages including English). The etymological orgin, the Germanic/Norse Hel, wasn't originally negative though. --Pykk (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are both ancient ideas connected with the afterlife. The "Underworld" in Greek legend, for example, was everyone's destination, except the just went to its better neighborhood. "Hell" is now considered to be a place of eternal "punishment", the extent of which depends on who or what you believe. Some believe literally in eternal fire, which has got to hurt. Others believe it's simply eternal separation from God and hence eternal woe. As far as "Hell" being a curseword, it's relatively mild as cursewords go. For example, in the "Star Trek" episode, "The City on the Edge of Forever", at the end Kirk says, "Let's get the hell out of here", which was moderately strong for TV, but that was mid-1960s. 45 years later, that one's pretty common, but you still can't say most of George Carlin's "seven little words" on regular TV, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still more of a curse than Hel. Even today, Scandinavian "slå ihjel" ("beat to Hel" - to kill) remains a common neutral term. (so it's not quite 'kill', which is more negative) Whereas our curse "hell" is "helvede", which is really a formation of "hel" + "vede" (punishment). IOW: "The punishment in Hel". So the negative association there doesn't come from "Hel" itself. So English 'hell' is more christian-ized. --Pykk (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with Scandinavian, it depends how it's used. Just as a comment, like "get the hell out" or "what the hell" is pretty mild. Telling someone to "go to hell", is rather worse. I recall in the early 90s or so, some kid (under age 10) in Virginia or North Carolina or someplace, who was a self-styled "preacher". His young career came to an abrupt end when he told a reporter on-camera to "go to hell", and it got widespread coverage (and probably a mouthful of soap). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the point. In any language, the strength of curses depends on context. The point was, their 'hel' is not a curse in any context, except for when compounded with something else that's negative. The fact that 'asshole' is a curse doesn't make 'hole' a curse. --Pykk (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Judaism of the Old Testament period, there was an underworld, but not really a hell -- it was believed that souls went down to Sheol to lead a shadowy afterlife, but there originally wasn't any real notion of divine judgement or punishment (that came in later, probably at least partially under Persian influence). AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the Revelation, with all its fiery imagery, was written well before any Persian influence came along. Or was it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close (remember, it's part of the New Testament). It was probably written during the first century AD, many centuries after Persia began to exert significant influence. See Book of Revelation#Dating. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall from Sunday School, Jesus referred to what we typically call Hell as "Gehenna", which was an analogy to a real place that was essentially a dumping ground with fires burning perpetually to purge the trash. A pretty powerful image, extrapolated into the imagery connected with Revelation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure what you mean -- the Persian period in the history of Judea was ca. 530 B.C. to ca. 332 B.C., while the Book of Revelation was written late in the 1st century A.D. By the way, the Persian (Achaemenid) empire is the only one of the many empires ruling over Jewish-populated territories (including the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, British etc.) which the Jews have an unequivocally positive historical memory of... AnonMoos (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~irrelevant and inappropriate personal religious rant removed~~

That would be the view that the Bible is essentially a random collection. The traditional Christian view is that the Bible a continuum and that it all ties together. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My comment above was in response to a comment by User:Cuddlyable3 that, while written sarcastically, made the point that Jesus did not write Revelation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of phrase

What is the origin of the phrase "The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys?" Did Benjamin Franklin say that or was it someone else? Does anyone know who? Keraunos (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give you a hint: if you're R.B., then the adage you've cited is B.F.'s.

Now try to guess who's B.F.

HOOTmag (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that in any way helpful? Vimescarrot (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but this claims it's a paraphrase. Searching for Benjamin Franklin "the only difference" mostly gives matches to a speech on churches. In the absence of evidence that it actually is a Franklin quotation, I'd suspect it's the Matthew effect - false attribution to a famous source of quotations. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really sound at all like either something Franklin would say, or how he would say it. You'd have to wonder if the idea it's a paraphrase is an attempt to reconcile the attribution to Franklin with the fact that it doesn't really sound like him? --Pykk (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a paraphrase of "Old boys have their playthings as well as young ones; the difference is only in the price." from Poor Richard's Almanac. meltBanana 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and "Poor Richard's Almanac" was written by B.F.

See my first response at the top of this thread.

HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why so cryptic? And who is RB? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more cryptic the more romantic. R.B. is the OP's true name. I'll be glad to reveal it, provided he/she permits. HOOTmag (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roast Beef. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a very good paraphrase, is it then? They're not really saying the same thing. --Pykk (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stress in German Compound Words

My mother has a plant in her front garden called a Monarda. On the little plastic card with its name on it, it says 'Monarda' followed by a German name 'Schneewittchen' and the translation 'Snow White'. This got me thinking. In English, the phrase 'Snow White' is generally stressed on the second word, and when I pronounced the German out loud it only felt natural for me to stress the second syllable of 'Schneewittchen'. I'm now wondering what the correct place for the stress would be, as in German it is usually on the first syllable. How is it with compound words? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a compound the main stress is usually put on the first word/element. (or perhaps I should say the second word is less stressed? - the overall stress pattern is the same.) If you stress both words as they'd be otherwise, it'd be interpreted as two separate words, which could have unintentional effects on meaning ("rothaarig" is "red-haired" but if you stress both words it becomes "rot, haarig" - "red, hairy" - not the description you wanted!) Sometimes the stress is moved to indicate contrast: Putting "employer" and "employee" together: "Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer" moves the stress to the second word in both compounds. Sometimes it's just on the second word for no apparent reason: "Travemünde" --Pykk (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the original nursery tale, "Snow White and Rose Red", the stress in English speech is usually on White and Red (I think because you're contrasting White with Red, rather than Snow with Rose, especially to small children), but if one were to refer to a "snow-white gown", it's equally (if not more) likely that an English-speaker would stress "snow", emphasizing how white the gown is. And I think that personally (as a native English-speaker born in London but living in the U.S.) I probably put about equal stress on both Snow and White if I'm talking about Snow White alone, or about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Native German speaker here, although not a linguist. I would say it depends which bit of the compound you want to emphasize. In the "Arbeitnehmer/Arbeitgeber" example stress on the second word is natural, since that distinguishes the two words, but "Arbeitgeber" could be pronounced with stress on the first syllable given the right context. I would put the stress on the second syllable of "Schneewittchen", just as in 'Snow White'.195.128.250.123 (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought so. It felt more natural to me that way, but I was wondering whether that was just my own language (English) influencing my German. And thanks to everyone else for your comments. Very interesting! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Schneewittchen is stressed on the second syllable, but what that shows is that it is not felt as a compound in German. A true compound, like Schneemännchen, would be stressed on the first syllable. Placenames usually take the non-compound stress even when they look like compounds, e.g. Salzgitter is stressed on the second syllable, but if it were a regular noun meaning "salt grid" it would be stressed on the first syllable. Interestingly, Norwegen (the German name of Norway) is stressed on the first syllable, as if it were still felt to be a compound. +An gr 07:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what I was saying, the stress moves from the first word to the second when put together, for contrast. I'm not sure I'd say it's natural - they don't normally do that in Swedish and Norwegian. (So if you did, you'd seem to be over-emphasizing that word, as if correcting someone) --Pykk (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When does a romanisation become a word?

I was recently involved in a dispute and someone tried to establish the wikt:shaku to be an English word instead of being an English romaji of Japanese. This led me wondering: what is the criteria for a romanisation to become a normal word? The people on Wiktionary seem to think it is an English word from the book citations but in this day and age of Google Books it's trivially easy to find any random word within published works. --antilived^{T | C | G} 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say your safest bet would be to check whether a word is included in general-purpose English dictionaries by reputable publishers. Oxford English Dictionary is always a great starting point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

My 1965 Merriam-Webster Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary lists "romanize", with its two meanings (making more like the Romans, and converting to the Roman alphabet used on this page), so it's safe to consider it a word, although not one used very frequently in places that have always used the Roman alphabet. Before China embarked on her National Romanisation Project, I think many people associated the word with Kemal Atatürk and the modernization of Turkey in the 1920's, which included romanizing (romanising) the written language. There's an occasional very specialised use for "romanise" in typographical contexts: i.e. changing the italic forms of letters to upright (or Roman) ones, or creating a Roman font to match an existing italic or Black Letter one. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's asking when a specific borrowing becomes accepted as an English word, not about the word "romanization" in particular. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That possible meaning was in the back of my head, but I didn't look closely enough at that little indefinite article, "a". Or I could have looked up the wikilink that antilived provided. :-) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(actually, I added the "a" after your message :) ) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea my thoughts get a bit incoherent when I'm sleep-deprived. I really need to sleep earlier... --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Ezhiki suggested, the word shaku is in the Oxford English Dictionary (Volume XV, page 148). As for inclusion, lexicography, like linguistics, is primarily concerned with being descriptive rather than prescriptive. Putting personal like or dislike aside, it relies on actual citations in various texts to determine usage and meaning. For English shaku, the OED has citations from early 18th century on up to the modern. Bendono (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG.. are you.. stalking me? :p That aside this is quite contrary to your strict policy of having article discussions (and more) on the talk page. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are now straying from the purpose of the help desk, but since you asked I will respond. I have been contributing to the Help Desk for years, as can be verified from my contributions. Both Language and Computers are on my watch list, and I occasionally check Mathematics. Bendono (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking part in a nature trail"?

Please see [1]. Is "taking part in a nature trail" a Britishism, or did the author mean "taking part in a nature hike"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of American English, in all my years of conversation and schooling, I've never heard anything like that. "Trail" is a noun describing a specific, concrete object, so I don't see how you can take part in it. Normally only an activity like cooking, boating, creating, etc. can be used with "taking part."--71.111.194.50 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British. We tend not to say "hike" here. But, yes, a "nature trail" is a mere walk through some wooded territory, a forest that type of thing. Many preserved nature places have "trails" that are marked out for visitors to walk through so nobody gets lost. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

["Trail" is a noun describing a specific, concrete object,] - never heard of someone trailing behind someone else? I guess it comes from that, when you walk through woodland through a narrow path, if there's a number of you, you would have to walk in single-file... so one trails behind the other. As such you may see a signpost saying "NATURE TRAIL" at the head of a path. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "going on a nature trail" (I'm British). "Hike" is usually used for more energetic walks than I would expect from a nature trail. When I was a scout we went on hikes, for example. They were long walks ("long" is relative to the ages of those taking part) often through difficult terrain. "Rambling" is similar to "hiking". --Tango (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)To clarify, in the UK a nature trail is "a walk through a (probably wooded area) with the express intention of admiring, studying, or experiencing nature - specifically natural (non-domesticated) plants and animals" , it can also mean " a path set out with the intention of doing the above".

In the UK I'm not aware of a "nature hike" being in use.

So it's probably a britishism.83.100.251.196 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a trail is a path on the ground, not an activity. Taking part in a nature trail sounds like he's lying on the ground and people are walking on him. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is it really true that nature trail is an activity in British English? Does the following sentence sound right in British English?

"As part of their ecology course, the students engaged in a nature trail."

In American English, that would be very wrong. It would have to be "...engaged in a nature walk" or "..made observations along a nature trail". I would be interested and surprised to hear that you can engage in a nature trail in British English. Marco polo (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Went on" or "took part in" (as per the OP) would be more natural than "engaged in", but all three are acceptable BrE. Tevildo (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help :

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22went+on+a+nature+trail%22&btnG=Search&meta=

also http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22took+part+in+a+nature+trail%22&btnG=Search&meta= this would be standard usage.83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an activity AND a type of path/walk. (verb/noun)83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is just a deliberate misuse of language for its attention-getting qualities? Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe it's not. Maybe it's just a dialect difference. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 83.100. I did a couple more searches and satisfied myself that a trail is, indeed, an activity for speakers of British English. For Americans it is no more than a footpath. This is yet another of those trans-Atlantic differences. Marco polo (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we also have "history trails" too (google for examples) It is probable that the use as a noun is confined mostly to tourism and educational activities, specifically in promotional material (though it has caught on and been accepted) and I think may be a comparatively recent use of the word. Curiously I always assumed the usage was influenced by or inherited from a transatlantic term...83.100.251.196 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, a history trail would be a visit to several different historical sites in a row. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the Freedom Trail, a historical walking tour of Boston, Massachusetts. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it would still sound odd to say something like, "I'm going to take part in a history trail", or "I'm going to take part in the Freedom Trail." Rather something more like, "I'm going to do the Freedom Trail", etc. I always like discovering these odd differences between US and British English. This is a new one for me. Pfly (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]