Language desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

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.

March 28[edit]

Legal Latin term[edit]

There is a term in legal Latin, meaning (approximately) "Offences to the gods will be dealt with by the gods", which was used recently (well, at some point in the 20th century) to clarify the status of blasphemous libel as an offence against the State, rather than against God. It's not in Legal Latin or Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom. Does anyone know what it is? Tevildo (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.ferriolus.info, Emperor Tiberius said "Deorum injuriae diis curae" ("The gods take care of injuries to the gods").

—Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks. And the case was Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406, per Lord Sumner, if anyone's interested. Tevildo (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, great! μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am this and am that[edit]

Is there a certain stylistic point in "I am a [sportsman] and am [a dogowner]? I have on occasion seen this kind of use of "am" by seemingly native English speakers. The lack of a second "I" is understandable, but why is the second "am" there? How is the clause different from "I am A and also B"? --Pxos (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Add: In writing that is, of course. --Pxos (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just another example of the poor state of education these days is my guess. Either that or an oblique reference to Eminem or M&Ms. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your implication is that there is something wrong with the sentence. What? --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that sort of ellipsis and simply an option one faces that may make more or less sense stylistically or for clarity in various contexts. You give me the full page of text before and after that statement and I can give a more definitive and well argued reason than "it depends". μηδείς (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with μηδείς that the context matters, but would add that I would be most likely to use this construction (to avoid unnecessary repetition) where the two subjacts are not grammatically congruent such as your two noun phrases, or are congruent but are very contrasting. Examples:

I am a sportsman and I am a dog owner - correct but clumsy;

I am a sportsman and am a dog owner - a little odd but not wrong;

I am a sportsman and a dog owner - more elegant;

I am a sportsman and [I] am reading theology at Oxford - normal in my idiolect [NB: neither statement is actually true!].

I am a sportsman and reading theology . . . - would seem wrong to most BrE speakers.

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I am a sportsman and reading theology" sounds wrong because it's a violation of the rules of Parallelism (grammar). Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeugma? "She left in a huff and a bathchair" --TammyMoet (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The construction just grates on my ears, but now that you mention it, I agree there are certain situations where it would be necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coniuncturalist[edit]

What's a coniuncturalist? It appears in our Edward Ochab article (added here), which describes him as being a "Political coniuncturalist with a Stalinist past". It's not in the OED, and a Google search for <coniuncturalist -ochab> returns exactly one result, so I'm guessing that it's some sort of misspelling; "conventionalist" would make sense by the context, but the arrangement of letters on my keyboard means that I can't imagine someone accidentally typing "coniuncturalist" while meaning "conventionalist". Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should start by assuming i=j. "Conjuncturalist" does get some definite Google hits (though not too many)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in Conjuncture (international relations). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling changed and link added. Thanks; I figured that it couldn't be a single-letter typo, since Google didn't give me a "Did you mean...?" message. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious calque from the Polish koniunkturalista, which Słownik języka polskiego PWN defines as "a person who is guided by their self-interest in their life".[1] In the article, I think it would be best to replace the word with "opportunist", unless someone suggests better words to express the same meaning in English. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Münchener or Münchner?[edit]

I am drinking Keisari Münchener beer right now, and the name caught my attention. Having actually visited Munich, I am fairly sure Munich natives spell it Münchner without the "e" in between. Am I correct? Or can it be spelled both ways? JIP | Talk 19:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Münchner is more common, but Münchener is correct as well. Angr (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a concrete example, the band is Münchener Freiheit, the U-Bahn station is Münchner Freiheit. Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]