Language desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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 22

Taught vs. learned

The previous question brought the following thought to my mind:

In Russian, the standard way to refer to a scientist/academic is "учёный", which literally means somewhat who was taught. Whether s/he learned is apparently not relevant:) In English, the closest literal equivalent is to say that someone is "learned". I don't know of an English word for a wise person that is related to "taught" concept, except maybe "scholar", which I guess is not exactly it. I know Latin has "doctus" which again implies someone who was taught, I don't know if there is an equivalent Latin word that expresses "learned". So I am wondering whether:

there is an English word which etymologically means someone who was taught.
how other languages express this: whether there is a word for academics that is similar to "taught" or "learned", or both.
other random speculation on the subject:) In particular whether you think this is historically rooted in different kinds of educational emphasis in different cultures.

--Ornil (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:learned, and you will see an almost perfect analogy with Russian: it says "From Old English læran (“to teach”)". Apparently, the word "learn" used to mean "teach", but gradually acquired only the "get to know" meaning. The adjective "learned", when applied to a person, kept that old meaning, but the verb "learn" today has the second meaning almost exclusively. See wikt:learn#Etymology_2:

(now regional slang or dialect)
- 1485, Sir Thomas Malory, Le Morte Darthur, Book VIII:
  And there Tramtryste lerned hir to harpe, and she began to have a grete fantasy unto hym.
- 2002, The Simpsons, (1 Feb 2002) Lisa's thoughts.
  That'll learn him to bust my tomater.

At least in my native Serbo-Croatian (and presume that it's so in Russian too), the verb "učiti" means both "learn" and "teach"; the adjective "učen" means "learned", though it has an archaic or poetic note in it (by my feeling, English "learned" has it too -- today, we'd rather say "educated"). No such user (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing in Slovene - you can sometimes see Slovenes whose English is not their forte mixing "to learn" and "to teach" in English sentences, like "I learned him to play guitar" or similar. "Učen" for "educated" feels only marginally archaic in Slovene, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So modern standard English makes a distinction between "learn (for oneself)" and "cause another to learn" which was not made in older English, and is still not made in some dialects, and many other languages. (Compare "lend/loan", where one part of the meaning has been supplanted in many Englishes by "borrow"). So the distinction you are making in your question is possibly not meaningful in some languages. --ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one more Slavic example: in Polish, "to teach" is uczyć, while "to learn" is uczyć się – with a reflexive pronoun, so literally meaning "to teach oneself". The perfective variant of this verb is nauczyć (się), "to have taught / to have learned". Related nouns include uczeń, "pupil, student"; nauczyciel, "teacher"; naukowiec, "scientist"; uczony, "learned person, academic"; and samouk, "autodidact". — Kpalion^(talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that learned used to mean taught in English. That seems to suggest that it is a general pattern across languages. As far as Slavic languages are concerned, in Russian also "learn"="teach oneself", but the word in question really means "taught", and is imperfective. If "learned" was really intended, It would have been more logical to use a perfective form "наученный" (one who is successfully taught), or "научившийся" (one who has learned = taught oneself). I am still curious about non-Slavic languages, so if a language you speak has this phenomenon, please let me know. (As a side-note, I'd say that "a learned man" is not the same as "an educated man". To me the former seems to imply a scholar, the latter someone who may have went to college). --Ornil (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking at the whole aspect thing too literally. бритый (shaved), жареный (roasted), вареный (cooked) and many others are also formally imperfective, yet their meaning is definitely perfective (they do not imply that you shaved, roasted, cooked the object for some time and then got bored and left it half-done). It's just conventional.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from French

Hi all. Could I please have a translation for the following from a fluent French speaker? I think I understand it from my own French knowledge, but I'd like to be sure.

Chaque maison ayant engagé en général trois véhicules, le premier de ces véhicules porte la lettre A, le second porte la lettre B, le troisième porte la lettre C. Un tirage au sort a eu lieu entre chaque maison, et suivant l'ordre des numéros sortis, les véhicules partiront dans l'ordre de ces numéros.

This is for the article 1906 French Grand Prix, and follows the discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Thanks, Aptery gial 09:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate, which tends to translate literally, gives this result:

Each house had three vehicles engaged in general, the first of those vehicles marked with the letter A, the second is the letter B, the third is the letter C. A draw took place between each house, and order numbers came out, the vehicles will start in order for these numbers.

Does this help? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think from the context you gave, house would be like "fashion house" - so that we're to understand "team". I'd say: "The teams usually entered three cars into the competition, and the first of these was assigned the letter A, the second B, and the third C. The teams would then draw to determine starting order, and the cars would leave in the order drawn." (I don't know if that refers to the order of the teams or the order of the a, b, and c cars - sorry). If somebody knows they should reply and say. 109.128.213.73 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially what I figured. I generally avoid Google Translate, because, as you say, it "tends to translate literally." It would certainly mean starting in the order of the numbers, however, rather than the letters. Does anyone have any alternate translations? Aptery gial 03:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about as clear as we can get without further explanation in the source. The "entre chaque maison" part seems to imply drawings for individual pairs of houses (cf. "entre chaque ligne" = between each line = between each line and the following line), but a drawing from a general pot seems more logical (?). Another literalish translation: "Each house generally having entered three vehicles, the first of these vehicles bears the letter A, the second bears the letter B, the third bears the letter C. A drawing took place between each house, and according to the order of the numbers drawn, the vehicles will start in the order of these numbers." Lesgles (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this context maison means Entreprise commerciale ou industrielle (un établissement, une firme, un magasin) see definition B.4 in TLFI, that is a company, a firm, a manufacturer, a store. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a French native speaker I don't unterstand the usage of chaque in tirer au sort entre chaque maison, I would simply say entre les maisons. I read the June 26 1906 edition of La Presse, (digital archives from 1836 to 1918 in Gallica, the digital library of the BnF). First the "maisons" are drawn, and according to the numbers drawn, the A vehicles start in this order, next the B vehicles in the same order, and finally the C vehicles. — AldoSyrt (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this into the article. I suppose that much prose, in whatever language, can seem clunky when it was written more than 100 years ago. Thanks so much for the help everybody! Aptery gial 10:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English translation from columns in Caphernaum

Hello, could someone give me the english translation from the incriptions please? --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting mostly for your convenience. The Latin text reads: PIAE MEMORIAE R P GAUDENTII ORFALI O F M CUIUS DEVOTA OPERA ANTIQUAE SYNAGOGAE LAPIDES SEPTEMTRIONALES ET QUATTUOR COLUMNAE SUIS RESTITUTAE SUNT SEDIBUS OBIT DIEBUS AB OPERE SUO DUOBUS XII KAL MAIAS AD MCMXXVI (=1926 a.d.) CONGRESSU ARCHEOL INTERNAT PLAUDENTE MAGISTRATUS ANTIQUITATIBUS CURANDIS TUENDIS P This is a memory inscription. OFM usually means the order of Franciscans, but Im not very confident in doing a word-for-word translation of this. The Greek reads "Herodes, Sohn des Monimos und sein Sohn Justus errichteten gemeinsam mit den Nachkommen diese Säule" per German translation in the subscript below the picture. This would be: 'Herod, Son of Monimos and his son Justus erected this column with their(?) progeny.'--91.97.19.186 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To the pious memory (R P?) of Gaudentius Orfalus, OFM, by whose devout work the ancient northern stones of the synagogue and four columns were restored to their proper spots, he died two days after this work on April 20, 1926." (At least I think that's what it says, but my jet lag-addled brain may not be reading it right.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a Polish article about pl:Gaudentius Orfali. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of tweaks: "To the pious memory of the Reverend Father (Reverendi Patris) Gaudentius Orfalus, OFM, by whose devout work the northern stones of the ancient synagogue and four columns were restored to their positions. He died two days after his work on April 20, 1926." ---- Ehrenkater (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek text reads Ἡρῴδης Μονίμου καὶ Ἰούστος υἱὸς ἅμα τοῖς τέκνοις ἔκτισαν τὸν κίονα. The German and English translations provided by 91.97.19.186 are basically correct, though "the children" would be a more literal translation than "their progeny". It's hard to interpret since a father and son don't normally have children together. Perhaps it means Justus's children, who are Herod's grandchildren. —Angr (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic help

The final page (Attachment F) of http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/flm/FLM_aohandbook.pdf has a listing of Arabic names of various US Government agencies and positions

What are the Arabic names, and of what agencies and positions are they of? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic text is fully translated into English in the right column. The bold section in Arabic is the translation of the page's title. The agencies listed are the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI),Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Marshalls Service, United States Attorneys Office and the Department of Justice. Is there anything else you are looking for ? --Xuxl (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm looking for a transcription of the Arabic text so that I can copy it into Wikipedia articles needing Arabic names of these agencies. Also I can set up redirects from those names to other names used on the Arabic Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Term for skepticism towards oneself

There was a term, I think, in philosophy (or maybe even theology?), for 'considering the possibility you might be wrong' about any given theory or belief. I think the term was two words, like "[Someone]'s Law" or something. I think the "someone"'s name started with P. Am I misremembering? Any ideas? 163.1.231.43 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)hyprocrbridge[reply]

Self-critical. Or, honest, modest, open-minded, liberal-minded, reflective, sober, serious, thoughtful, diligent, conscientious. Vranak (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a famous story about Ben Franklin appealing for compromise at the 1787 constitutional convention: ...But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right"--Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison. ... On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument. -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's fallibilism, though that doesn't match your pattern "P---'s Law". It links to Münchhausen Trilemma, which is at least [Someone's] [something]. 213.122.60.234 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing Boston if you are from Boston, daughter in England

Every Saturday I hear the Car Talk guys pronounce the "o" in Boston. Last week I asked a question about different prounciations of "o" in such words as "cord" and "dog", but I'm not clear on whether IPA has a different symbol for the Car Talk guys' prounciation of Boston.

Also, last night on Chuck an English girl was the daughter of the show's current main villain. I kept hearing the word "daughter" pronounced differently than Americans might. Is there an IPA symbol for that sound as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchimpanzee (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you know what part of England she was from, that's going to be tough to answer. Marnanel (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only know she sounded upper-class.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the actress is Lauren Cohan. Whether she's doing her usual accent or not I don't know. Never mind, Wikipedia says she's American. Well, she did the accent perfectly. Actually, she did spend some time in England.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue here is that the o in Boston and the au in daughter are pronounced in different ways in different parts of England. Those two vowels are also both pronounced in different ways in different parts of the United States. In some places, they may be the same vowel. In others, the vowels will be different. In Received Pronunciation, the usual "upper-class" pronunciation in England, I believe that the first vowel in both words is the same: ɔː. In the Boston accent of the Car Talk guys, the first vowel in both words is also the same, but it is a different vowel from the Received Pronunciation vowel. In Boston, this vowel is ɒː . Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Boston and daughter have the same first vowel in RP? RP does not have the cot-caught merger. If Boston had the vowel of daughter (ɔː), it would rhyme with Causton, which I really don't think it does. Have a listen to the UK audio at [1], the o is short, an ɒ, as in boss. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any accent in Britain which would have the first vowels in "Boston" and "daughter" the same. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few very conservative RP speakers who still have the lot-cloth split (apparently including the Queen) might have "Boston" and "daughter" with the same vowels – is "Boston" a CLOTH word? Lfh (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the same thing, but no, apparently not in RP. I checked Daniel Jones' pronouncing dictionary of RP, which includes the archaic "lot-cloth split" pronunciations as alternative forms in brackets, and no version with ɔː was given for Boston (whereas ɔː versions were indeed given for cloth and cost). That said, some American accents with the split might indeed treat Boston as a "cloth" word (Rhode Island may be one such accent, judging from what Maunus says). The "cloth" domain is quite variable between different accents, New York for instance has many more "cloth" words than Dainel Jones' archaic RP ever did (cawffee, dawg). I'm not sure how New York would treat "Boston" (neither ʷɔː nor ɑː sound completely implausible to me). Boston itself obviously cannot treat its own name as a "cloth" word, since it has the caught-cot merger, which has killed the lot-cloth split.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the record, Boston does seem to be a cloth word in NYC.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People around here (Providence Rhode ISland) say something like ['bʷɔːstɪn] (buorstin)·Maunus·ƛ· 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to clarify, I was not looking for the England pronunciation of Boston.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for screwing up the RP pronunciation of Boston, even though it wasn't asked for. I had assumed that, since Boston is a "cloth word" in the United States where the lot-cloth split exists, it would be a "cloth word" in England, too, but I stand corrected. Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "cloth word"? DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A word whose vowel is the same as the one in "cloth", rather than being the same as the one in "lot", for those whose dialect includes the lot-cloth split. Marnanel (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found that after asking here. The trouble with that section is that for those of us to whom the vowels in lot and cloth are the same, it reads very confusingly. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you learn a language with multimedia packages...

...like that (extremely expensive) Rosetta Stone. Quest09 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you always need to interact with real speakers. 77.231.17.82 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why they offer Rosetta Stone Latin? --- OtherDave (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

to interact with the pope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.183.15 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Latin is a dead language is a furphy. It may not be the lingua franca of a people any more, but it is still alive and well. There are radio stations that broadcast in Latin, for example. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

They offer Rosetta Stone Latin because people buy it, of course. They're not a charitable institution. Marnanel (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say much depends on what you mean by "learn." Do you want to be able to read a French newspaper? Get a date with a French speaker? Obtain a job in a French-speaking country? Pass an entrance exam?

I have seen the Rosetta Stone introductory course for French, and find it similar to the free, online course at livemocha.com. Both take an approach that presents you from the start with sets of text, images, and spoken language, rather than with grammar lists, verb conjugations, and so forth. There's further detail in the article on Rosetta Stone software.

You see a different approach, still with extensive visuals and sound, on sites like FrenchPod.com and its elder sibling, ChinesePod.com. (For example, here's a link to the feature tour on FrenchPod.) I'd say that the "pods" include more study material than Rosetta Stone does.

Since I knew some French before seeing the Rosetta and LiveMocha courses, I don't feel able to say whether someone who knew nothing of a language could learn to hold a conversation in it relying only on the course material. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the principal problem with learning a language solely from a source like a book or a multimedia package is the lack of verification. You don't get to know whether you're really speaking the language correctly or you just think you are. A native speaker, or someone who has otherwise already learned the language, will be able to tell you. JIP | Talk 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR here but I learnt Dutch using Linguaphone, sufficiently well to impress the post office clerk in Ypres! So I'd tend to say yes, but you can't beat interaction. The trouble I found about going to Holland/Belgium and trying to speak Dutch/Flemish to them, was that they were also eager to practise their English on me! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trouble with abroad, they will speak English at you! (Except in France, where whatever language you try on them they will just shrug, spit, and gesticulate scornfully. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem here. I studied up on my German, using Rosetta Stone, before my last trip to Germany. I tried to order things in German but was asked to use English instead. :-( Dismas|^(talk) 14:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Innan vs. före

Swedish has two words which can mean "before", i.e. "at an earlier point in time", innan and före. What is the difference between them? JIP | Talk 19:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitionary translates both as earlier in time, but före also (primarily?) means "positionally in front of". If someone familiar with Swedish can explain the subtleties, it would be useful to check the entries and perhaps add a usage note there. Here's one possible explanation: "“Innan” is a “subjunction”, which means it is the conjunction between an independent and a dependent clause. Other words from the same category that you probably recognise are “därför att” (because), “eftersom” (since) and “att” (that). “Före” is simply a preposition and only has a relation to a noun, not a whole clause. “Före” means “before” as a preposition, but is also used meaning “in front of” or “ahead of”. (A couple of typos corrected in this quote, so please check its accuracy.) Dbfirs 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian has the same two words, not sure the distinction is exactly the same as in Swedish, but to my ears innan (Norw. innen) has a slightly more normative feel, perhaps translatable as no later than. Före (Norw. før) seems to correspond well to "before". (As an extension of this, you could say that innen is

t\leq T

while før is

t<T

, but I think the normative/descriptive nuance is a better description.) Jørgen (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian innen is slightly different from innan. In addition to the "earlier than something else" meaning, innan could also mean "before", synonymous with förut, e.g. Jag har inte gjort det innan (I haven't done it before/earlier). decltype (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Dbfirs said (although I'm not a native speaker). innan mostly introduces subordinate clauses or infinitives (innan jag kommer "before I come"), före mostly introduces nominal phrases (före min ankomst "before my coming"). The rest is details. For example, innan is occasionally used like före in some expressions (innan jul "before Christmas"), but my dictionary describes this use as informal. innan dess "before that" is a fixed expression meaning "before that", with a frozen genitive, which shows that the prepositional use used to be accepted more than it is today; just innan can be used informally as an adverb in the same sense as innan dess: jag visste det redan innan "I knew it already before that / in advance". On the other hand, före certainly can't be used conjunctionally like innan (*före jag kommer is impossible), even in colloquial speech.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think many Swedes use these as exactly the same word, not thinking of much semantic difference. I would say "this work has to be completed before Christmas" could be "det här jobbet måste bli klart före jul", whilst "we should meet up before Christmas" would be "vi borde ses innan jul". --Soman (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you wouldn't use "före" as a synonym of "innan", as in "*före jag kommer" instead of "innan jag kommer", would you? --91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]