From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< October 22	<< Sep | October | Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

Contents 1 October 23 1.1 translation into Latin 1.2 Adverbs at the start of sentences 1.3 explain the word combination 1.4 Apostrophes in science writing 1.5 Quicquid conaris, quo pervenias cogites 1.6 Somethingo-something 1.7 What doesn't kill you... 1.8 László Moholy-Nagy 1.9 'replace by' versus 'replace with' 1.10 Feminine/Masculine Nounsand Definite Article agreement in Romance Languages

[edit] October 23

[edit] translation into Latin

How would I translate 'mother bear' into Latin?

Ursa materna Marco polo 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Or just ursa mater, using apposition. —Keenan Pepper 05:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adverbs at the start of sentences

E.g., Apparently, the search is over. Are such adverbs known as "paranthetical", as "atmosphere adverbs", or what? And how do they work - are they assumed to modify the "atmosphere" surrounding the sentence? Λυδαcιτγ 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. They're usually equivalent in meaning to a related verb, e.g. Apparently, the search is over. = It appears the search is over. I try to avoid them. —Keenan Pepper 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, how did they come to be used in this manner? Λυδαcιτγ 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally, I believe. :-) StuRat 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it felt natural to put an adverb at front, having it emphasized? I don't think it sounds like a strange evolution... 惑乱 分からん 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Note, Lydacitg, that some grammarians have objected to this construction, although in general the criticism has been entirely against one poor adverb, hopefully. But I am able to offer no linguistic reason for its appearance better than those others have already suggested. Lesgles (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An adverb placed at the beginning of a sentence like that modifies the whole sentence. The distinction between this and modifying the verb is often slight, but sometimes the change in the meaning is significant. Zocky | picture popups 07:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] explain the word combination

Please, explain the use of the word combination 'in anger'. In the first three examples its meaning is more or less clear 'truly', 'actually'. But what about the fourth one?

1. After a scrappy opening, the first shot in anger came from Germany’s Michael Ballack.
2. The 17-year-old Ronaldo made his Brazil debut in a friendly in 1994 and scored his first goal a month later against Iceland. He was included in the World Cup squad, but did not kick a ball in anger.
3. La Furia Roja were winning a lot of high balls and captain Fernando Hierro soared above the Korean defence from a left wing corner only to see his header clear the post by inches (31’). Up to this point, Guus Hiddink’s men hadn’t hit a shot in anger.
4. Ivanov Jr. initially took after his father and donned his boots in anger as a midfielder for Torpedo Moscow, where his dad made his name and where he was a Soviet Cup winner in 1982.

81.89.88.106 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The context of the first three examples ("making a shot in anger") seems to be making a strike for goal against the opposing team (as opposed to just passing the ball or kicking an own goal). The last example, and a Google search for "boots in anger" reveals this is fairly common usage, seems to mean taking part in a match against an opposing team, as opposed to practice or training. --Canley 06:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They talk about shots in anger in war as shooting at the enemy as opposed to pracise shots. As such, it could be considered a pun on this usage, in drawing similarities between war and sports. It means, more or less, "in earnest" or "for real". Aaadddaaammm 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC) PS. That was way clearer in my head...

Fascinating...Living in the US Midwest, I've never heard either of these ways of using "in anger". Of course, I'm not much of a football (soccer) fan. –RHolton≡– 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As an American who has recently got into football/soccer, I can say that reading the coverage of matches from journalists in the UK is always an adventure. There's usually at least one or two "interesting" phrases like this to deal with. :). Recury 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophes in science writing

Why do my lecturers hate seeing apostrophes in any kind of lab report or scientific essay? I can understand not being too keen on contractions (is that the right word?) like "don't" in these formal texts, but they also seem to hate possesive apostrophes. Does anyone know why this may be? Aaadddaaammm 07:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophobia? --hydnjo talk 08:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are using possessive apostrophes, possibly you are not writing impersonally, as is appropriate for a lab report --124.243.155.3 10:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On some computers, the same symbol is used for both single quotes and apostrophes, which can confuse word processor software trying to find the end of a quotation. StuRat 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophes are not used to denote plurals, not even for the word "apostrophes". :) JackofOz 11:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. StuRat 05:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They might be arguing against using the apostrophe with inanimate nouns, where saying "of the..." is more common, e.g. we generally say "the contents of the beaker" rather than "the beaker's contents". I see no problem, however, with "Mendeleev's chief contribution to the field of chemistry was the periodic table". Lesgles (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the general hate of contractions rolls over to possesive apostrophes. X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 07:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the apostrophes themselves but the perceived informality of the contractions (don't, won't, can't, it's) that irks your lecturers, just like they might disapprove of a conclusion stating that approach 2 proved "a whole lot better" than approach 1.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Didn't read the question properly.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As a professor myself, I'm wondering why don't you just ask them? (btw, my students don't write lab reports).mnewmanqc 12:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quicquid conaris, quo pervenias cogites

What does this latin phrase mean? Who said this?

Quicquid conaris, quo pervenias cogites

A simple search suggests Publilius Syrus, along with the translation "In your every endeavour contemplate your goal". [1] —Bromskloss 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More literally, "Whatever you try, consider [or may you consider] where you would arrive.". —Keenan Pepper 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somethingo-something

Sometimes, in a compound like "Austro-Hungarian", we can see a special form of a word ending in "-o". Other examples are "Anglo-Saxon, "Italo-Abyssinian War", "Sino-Japanese", "Indo-European languages", and "Franco-Prussian War. What can we call this, and where does this come from? I'm sure we have something in Wikipedia about it, but I'm not sure where to look, or what to type in the search box. -- Vardion 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's from Latin, some sort of Latin conjoining... 惑乱 分からん 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"the typical ending of the first element of compounds of Greek origin (as -i- is, in compounds of Latin origin), used regularly in forming new compounds with elements of Greek origin and often used in English as a connective irrespective of etymology: Franco-Italian; geography; seriocomic; speedometer." (Dictionary.com) --Ptcamn 14:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In summary, it is a grammatical construction of Greco-Latinate origin. ;) -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, although it seems I was wrong... 惑乱 分からん 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What doesn't kill you...

Does anyone know where the quote "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" (or something similar) comes from?

Friedrich_Nietzsche (click on the WikiQuotes link near the bottom of the article) --LarryMac 15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, translation of German Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker. 惑乱 分からん 15:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] László Moholy-Nagy

How do you pronounce his name? Google says "Nagy" might be "naaj" (and I guess the rest would be more or less how an English speaker would expect) but there are also a couple of wildly different answers. I have no familiarity with Hungarian whatsoever and I think a pronounciation would be a helpful addition to his article. Recury 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Imre Nagy says [nɒɟ] "nodj". MeltBanana 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Hungarian phonology, the whole name sounds something like "Laahsslohh Mohoy Nodj". The "ly" in Hungarian is pronounced much like the English consonant "y". Also, in Hungarian, long vowels (with acute accents) are pronounced for a longer duration than the corresponding short vowels. Marco polo 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

IPA would be [la:slo: mohoj nɒɟ]. Marco polo 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've added it to the article. Recury 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a professor (Philil B. Meggs) who was teaching a History of 20th century Visual Communication course where he claimed he called Moholy-Nagy's daughter and asked her how she pronounced her father's name in English, and she responded with [mʌ'hoʊli 'nɑgi] or "ma-holy na-gee". I'm not sure what wikipedia's policy is on foreign names, but there are definatelly people whose name is pronounced differently in English than in their native language (for example, any German with a W in their name).--Andrew c 04:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there are just names that are pronounced differently by English speakers. (or any other language) But I wouldn't consider that to be a 'correct' if it's not how the person in question pronounced it, or rather, how they'd prefer it to be pronounced. I wouldn't consider a foreign language pronunciation of my name correct, even though I intentionally mispronounce it myself when speaking foreign lanugages. (It's too tedious to have to spell it out otherwise) Anyway, there's no point in putting an English pronunciation in the article since the reader probably already knows how it'd be pronounced according to English orthography. --83.145.46.141 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'replace by' versus 'replace with'

So hey, i have a question that might be a little specific. I've tried Googling this and checking a few sites on grammar, but nobody seems to have a definitive answer. No Manual of Style or anything like that, just random guys on Usenet or whatever.

Anyway, here's my (two-part) question: Is there a difference between 'replace by' and 'replace with', and is there any reliable information available on their etymologies?

In case you don't get what i'm saying, i'm talking about the difference between (e.g.):

Are bartenders being replaced by robots?
and
Are bartenders being replaced with robots?

Google says 'by' is used like twice as often as 'with', but 'with' is still used a lot, in my experience, especially in casual conversation. Everything i've found suggests that both are acceptable, but it seems to me that they might have slightly different connotations.

As far as the second part of my question (etymology), i'm wondering if there's any source on their usage. For example, have they always been used interchangeably, or were they once entirely separate terms? And, did one come before the other? And, is there a regional component to their usage (e.g., do the British say 'by' more than Americans do)?

Probably a super-specific difficult question, but i'm really curious. Thanks. ~ lav-chan @ 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The "by" means that the robots are doing the replacing, and is the equivalent of "Robots are replacing bartenders". The "with" form is entirely passive; the active form would have an actor that's not within the sentence, "Someone (or bar owners, or whoever) is replacing bartenders with robots." There may not be a lot of difference in meaning, but the "by" version is the one I'd use if I were trying to focus anger against the robots, whereas the "with" version is the one I'd use if I didn't want anger against the robots.--Prosfilaes 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) First off, the first version allows this active form: Robots are replacing bartenders. This shows a potential ambiguity; it could mean: Robots are replacing bartenders with (e.g.) trained chimps. This may throw the Google count off, although I don't think it would be by much.

Assuming that the intention is that the robots are the "new" bartenders, I think there is a point-of-view difference. In the "by" version, the pov aligns itself with the bartenders who are being displaced. What is going to become of them? Etcetera. In the "with" version, the pov aligns itself with a cool eye looking at the efficiency of the bar process. Who cares about bartenders; will the robots sell more drinks and have fewer demands? So, for example, you'd replace your broken lense cap with a new cap, while pining the replacement of photographic cameras by digital cameras. I'm not claiming that this is a sharp distinction, only that there is this undertone.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lambiam's comments, and I will venture to suspect that the difference in connotation is the same both for British and American English. I am a speaker of American English. Is there a British English speaker who sees this differently? Marco polo 22:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When I first read the subsection title I put the phrases into imperative sentences e.g. "Replace the bartenders with chimps" and "Replace the bartenders by chimps", the latter of which obviously doesn't make sense for reasons of point-of-view as states above. Just another way of thinking about the problem. Corporal 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feminine/Masculine Nounsand Definite Article agreement in Romance Languages

Hi there. I'm curious! In languages sharing Latin as their common derivative, is there a general pattern of feminine and masculine agreement across these languages? In other words, if I use 'el' in front of a noun in Spanish, will I always use 'le' in French? Thanks, Karin Sharafi

There's some commonality in gender assignment to inanimate-referring nouns across the Romance languages, but no absolutely exceptionless correspondence rule... AnonMoos 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Words ending in -a tend to be feminine in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, and words ending in -o tend to be masculine. 惑乱 分からん 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Words that were masculine or feminine in Latin usually but not always preserve their gender. The problem is those pesky neuters, that got split up in unpredictable ways. mnewmanqc 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An example of an exception to the basic rule of gender preservation is that arbor is feminine in Latin, while albero in Italian, árbol in Spanish, and arbre in French, all are masculine. In most cases Latin neuters became masculine: from somnium to sogno–sueño–songe.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As some further trivia, there's the French droite which is "right" in both senses and feminine. But in Spanish you have derecho in masculine for "right" as in "legal right" but derecha for "right" as in the direction. --BluePlatypus 17:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Droite as an adjective-turned-noun in French means "the right side" or "the (political) right", and also "straight line", presumably because it represents la côté droite or une ligne droite. The masculine noun droit means "(legal) right", and also "law", as in droits humains and le droit français.  --Lambiam^Talk 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)