Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 October 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Language desk
< October 14 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 16 >
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 15[edit]

Looking for better phrasing[edit]

This isn't really a reference question (like many questions on the language desk), but I have been wondering whether anyone here could come up with a better phrasing of the following (i.e. without the repetition of "be"). "Any contributions received after the deadline will be assumed to be intended for the following edition." Thanks for any suggestions.--Shantavira|feed me 08:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You could de-passify it: "We will assume that any contributions we receive after the deadline are intended for the following edition". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, or "Any contributions received after the deadline will be treated as being intended for the following edition.", or "Any contributions received after the deadline will be considered for the following edition."
Next question, can anyone come up with an alternative to Jack's de-passify? Sussexonian (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Activify? Never heard of either to be honest, but useful-sounding words the two of them. -- the Great Gavini 15:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you are making assumptions about submitter's intentions. I'd just say: " Any contributions received after the deadline will be considered for the following edition." --Ludwigs2 15:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that, Ludwigs2, is that you are making assumptions about the context, and changing the basic meaning of the sentence. We were given a sentence that includes reference to an assumption, and we were asked to make the wording less clumsy, not say something quite different that eliminates all mention of the assumption. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
See http://www.onelook.com/?w=*ivize&ls=a. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of a tree[edit]

I'm looking for an English word for the "cave" you sometimes get in a tree when a branch has fallen off and the outer bark/wood remains but the inner has eroded somehow. A "knot" is a bit like that but the inner hasn't eroded away. I had thought it was a "bole", but that appears to be the tree trunk. Any good words out there? -- SGBailey (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The OED has "knot-hole: the hollow formed in the trunk of a tree by the decay of a branch." You might also be interested in looking up kerf, knag, and knar which are other bits of trees.--Shantavira|feed me 11:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd have said "hollow", but there really should be a more specific word. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Latin translation please.[edit]

Resolved

I've been tinkering with the Albion page, and need a Latin to English translation please, for rex et primicerius totius Albionis regni, which is what King Æthelstan liked to call himself after he beat the Scots at the Battle of Brunanburh. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make out (my Latin is the rusty remains of 4.5 years of lost time, back when England was called Albion), it translates as "King and first of all the rulers of Albion". We have an article on primicerius, which does not have a simple translation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Regnum means "kingdom, realm"; for "primicerius" see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprimicerius . I would say "King and chief of the whole kingdom of Albion"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou both. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Perfide" (fr.) and "perfidious" (Eng.)[edit]

Is there a word more commonly used in English than "perfidious" that otherwise has the same connotation that "perfide" does in French? Thanks, from User:Bielle in a hotel lobby in Ottawa. 207.219.128.198 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is treacherous. Marco polo (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's it, I suspect, though somehow "amant perfide" has a little more punch than "treacherous lover". Thank you, Marco polo from User:Bielle yet again in a hotel lobby in Ottawa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.128.198 (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the time, "perfide" is nothing more than an emphatic metaphorical adjective, like the English "dirty", "nasty", "stinking", "putrid", and "rotten": "escroc perfide" = "dirty crook"; "menteur perfide" = "filthy liar"; "amant perfide" = "slimy, two-timing boyfriend", perhaps? Of course, in certain cases "treacherous" or "perfidious" itself would be fine, especially if you wanted to convey irony: "les perfides juifs", for instance. LANTZYTALK 05:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)