Language desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

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.

February 18

Is the following sentence ambiguous?

There’s no question that gravity wins in that circumstance.

Does it mean that gravity wins? Or does it mean that gravity does not win? Can it mean either depending on the circumstance? Kindly explain. 117.211.88.149 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

Unfortunately it can mean either – at least in British English, which often uses "No question (of)" to mean "No possibility (of)": see here (under the heading "No doubt that"). In an American context, on the other hand, it would definitely mean that gravity wins. Lfh (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they say "No question of gravity winning"? I thought that this construction takes a continuous verb in BrE. On the other hand, AmE would use "no question that" and a different verb. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that would be the more common construction in BrE - but it would still be helpful to know whether the OP's quote comes from a BrE or AmE source. I'm sure they discussed this topic on Language Log a year or two ago, but I can't find it - does anyone else remember? Lfh (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all ambiguous. It means that gravity will always win in the specified circumstances. However in circumstances other than that specified, gravity will sometimes win and sometimes lose depending on some other condition. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"That circumstance" sounds unusual to me. I would use "that case" or "those circumstances". Thoughts? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly unusual, but far from unprecedented. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to warn about the last link you posted, Jack. My antivirus took action against some "Iframe.B.Gen virus". Maybe it was just me. Anyway, I wanted to share the warning. Pallida Mors 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My system was (and remains) oblivious to it, but thank you for noting that circumstance, Pallida Mors. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of 17th-century German book title

If someone could help translate the 17th-century German book title at "commons:File:Christoph Hartknoch, Kupferstich von Frauenburg (1684).jpg" into English that would be great. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the

Alt- und neues Preussen, oder, Preussischer Historien zwey Theile: in derer erstem von desz Landes vorjähriger Gelegenheit und Nahmen, wie auch der Völcker, so darinnen vor dem teutschen Orden gewohnet, Uhrankunfft, Lebens-Beschaffenheit, Sprache, Religion, Hochzeiten, Begräbnüssen, Hausshaltung, Kriegsrüstung, Republic und andere Sitten und Gewohnheiten: in dem andern aber von desz teutschen Ordens Ursprung, desselben, wie auch der nachfolgenden Herrschafft vornehmsten Thaten und Kriegen, Erbauung der Städte, der itzigen Innwohner Uhrsprung, Religion, Müntzordnung, Rechten und Policeywesen gehandelt wird

bit? Not a native speaker, but with a little help from Google Translate (uncertain translations marked with †, very uncertain left untranslated):

Old and New Prussia, or Prussian history two parts: In the first, of the country's historical† opportunities† and acquisitions, and also, how the people lived prior to the Teutonic Order, ancient arrival, quality of life†, language, religion, holidays, Begräbnüssen(burial customs/items?), housekeeping, armaments, governance†, and other customs and habits. In the other, however, the time from the Teutonic Order's origin itself will be dealt with, also, the subsequent governments'† principal deeds and wars, the building of cities, the origin of jewish[1]† itinerants†, religion, coinage, rights, and Policeywesen(police powers?).

Hope that helps. -- 174.21.250.120 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff:

"Hochzeiten" means "weddings" (not "holidays")
"Begräbnüssen" does indeed mean burials
Here, "itzig" is derived from "itzo" and is an old word for "jetzig" meaning "present-day".
"Innwohner" is "Einwohner", i.e. "inhabitants"
I'd translate "[...] der itzigen Innwohner Uhrsprung, Religion, Müntzordnung, Rechten und Policeywesen" as "[...]the present-day inhabitants' origins, religion, coinage laws, rights, and police matters"

---Sluzzelin talk 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give this a little more coherence and accuracy:

Old and new Prussia, or Prussian history's two parts: in the first of them the country's ancient position and names, as well as the people who lived there before the Teutonic Order, their ancient settlement of the region, ways of life, language, religion, weddings, burials, livelihood, armaments, politics, and other customs and practices are covered; in the second the origins of the Teutonic Order itself, as well as the subsequent rulers' finest deeds and wars, construction of towns, the origins of the present-day inhabitants, religion, coinage (currency), laws, and government.

Note that some of these German words have meanings that are obsolete in present-day German. For example, Policeywesen in the 17th century (which would now be spelled Polizeiwesen) meant much more than "police matters" as we would define that term. See for example Polizeiwissenschaft. Policey in the 17th century referred to all areas of government control and regulation. Note also that the subject covered in the first part of this work is the Old Prussians and that the work as a whole refers to the historic region of Prussia rather than the later kingdom of Prussia. I am not a native speaker, but I spent a few years immersing myself in dusty German books and archival documents from this period and a little later. Marco polo (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for everyone's help! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have one remaining question regarding your (excellent) translation, Marco polo: How did you come to the conclusion that "Uhrsprung" was the sole possessed referent of "Innewohner" as a possessor? Grammatically, the possessor's pre-positioning makes the plurality of possessed referents "Uhrsprung, Religion, Müntzordnung, Rechten und Policeywesen" possible as well. Semantically, I think both interpretations can make sense too. That is why I chose to reflect this ambiguity in English by pre-positioning "the present-day inhabitants' " (instead of "of the present-day inhabitants"). I lack the feeling and knowledge regarding historical documents though, so I may be missing something. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian

What's the ~~Mesopotamian~~ Sumerian translation for "Bringer of Death"? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no past or present language called (in English) "Mesopotamian." Various languages have been or are spoken in the region called Mesopotamia: which of them did you mean? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a little microcosm of changing middle-east lingua francas: Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Arabic... AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were addressing that to me, AnonMoos, I am well aware of the region's ancient linguistic history, and didn't want to confuse the OP with too much detail before he could clarify. If you were addressing the OP, your indent was misleading. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I was addressing anyone -- just making a general observation on the mutability of time (in reply, however, to your message, and not the OP's...) AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Sumerian". --75.15.161.185 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "nam-úš túmu" seems plausible to me.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]