Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 October 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 6	<<Sep | October | Nov>>	October 8 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Contents 1 Flock, herd, & cattle 2 translation 3 Deponent Verbs in English 4 Lefebvre

[edit] Flock, herd, & cattle

Please explain the distinction among the three words.

"only let your flocks and your herds be stayed" Exodus 10:24

"Our cattle also shall go with us" Exodus 10:26

--Patchouli 06:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In modern English, 'herd' is used of larger animals, such as bovines, deer or elephants, and 'flock' of smaller animals, such as sheep and birds. See wikt:herd. (This is not a firm rule - I think a group of pigs or goats would be as likely to be a herd as a flock).

'Cattle' is in modern English used as the general plural word for bovines (there is no satisfactory singular, as 'cow', 'bull' and 'ox' are all (strictly) sex-specific. In common parlance, especially to children, 'cow' is often used as a general term), but in older English it could be used for other domestic animals. It does not imply that they are in a herd however - two cows are 'cattle' but not (normally) a 'herd'.

However, two things make the answer a bit more complicated:

1. The King James Version is in early modern English. not modern English. 'Flocks and herds' probably does mean 'sheep (or goats) and bovines', but 'cattle' may well mean 'domestic animals in general'.
2. The translators were concerned to represent the original Hebrew as far as possible. 'your flocks and herds' renders Hebrew: צאנכם וכקרכם‎, while 'our cattle' is Hebrew: מקננו‎ (but is singular). Different words are used in the English because different words were used in the Hebrew.

--ColinFine 08:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The herds were the domesticated cattle used for work, as well as for milk, food, and clothing. They are here distinguished from the flocks, which included the smaller animals, particularly the "sheep" and the "goats" . . . Cattle is a more generic term for "possessions," but here it means "animals," or "livestock" (10:26 NRSV). Noel D. Osborn and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Exodus (UBS handbook series; helps for translators, New York: United Bible Societies, 1999), 205, 254. —Wayward ^Talk 12:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The correspondence between livestock and possessions is also found in Indo-European languages. I think "pecuniary" from Latin originally referred to cattle, and the German cognate to "fee" ("Vieh") means cattle, today. 惑乱 分からん 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And indeed 'pecus' and 'Vieh/fee' are ultimately related. --ColinFine 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Patchouli 21:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] translation

what does this mean? oie tyo loco kaha bata ayi pugyo tero ma? hahaha moro kya 219.78.58.36 07:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Which language is it? Where did you find it? Did you made the transcription yourself? Btw, it looks somewhat like Indonesian to me, but I could be wrong again... 惑乱 分からん 09:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A google on the two words 'bata pugyo' gives several Nepalese hits, so I guess it's Nepali. The latter article says that 'pugyo' means 'enough'. --ColinFine 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't Idonesian although it does look like it. Tagalog, maybe? Also, the first three words sound a bit like Spanish "Oye, tío loco", meaning something like "Listen here, you crazy guy". And the Phillipines were Spanish for quite some time, so some Spanish influence in the language makes sense. Of course 'hahaha' probably means 'hahaha'. DirkvdM 06:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nepali. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deponent Verbs in English

Deponent verbs are verbs which are passive (or middle) in form, but active in meaning. I came up with 'to be born', but was wondering if there were any more. Thoughts? —Daniel (‽) 10:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "to be born" is active in meaning, I'd guess the mother is actively giving birth, actually... (OK, I guess the baby is somewhat pushing, though...) 惑乱 分からん 10:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that it is: it probably came from something like the verb 'to bear' (past participle 'bourne'), but now, as there is no active form of 'to be born' (other than 'to give birth', which is arguably a different verb) I think that it does count as a deponent verb. —Daniel (‽) 10:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm ... 'be born' is the passive of 'bear'. In the sense of 'carry', the past participle is usually written 'borne' (not 'bourne', which is a stream!) and 'born' is now restricted to the 'birthing' sense ("she bore him a child" - "the child was born"). I can think of no reasonable interpretation of 'be born' which makes the child the actor, and hence this is not active.

More generally, since English does not have a passive (or middle) voice, the concept of 'deponent' is unlikely to be applicable. English has a complex construction with passive meaning, but it does not work like the Latin passive: note particularly that some varieties of English (though not any standard varieties AFAIK) allow "That chair needs moved", where the passive is conveyed by the participle alone, without the 'be' copula.

--ColinFine 11:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"be born", unlike most (all?) English passives, does not allow an 'agent' to be expressed with "by". You can't say things like **"At 3pm yesterday a child was born by Mary."

Synchronically, I lean towards considering the baby to be the agent, and "be born" to be something like a deponent verb. It's only related to "bear" diachronically. --Ptcamn 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain about that was born to Mary bit? It doesn't strike me as wrong, merely somewhat odd/archaic/poetical... 惑乱 分からん 00:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, I concede that in that respect it does not pattern with other passives. But here's a respect in which it does pattern with passives. Consider:

• Born in Lyon, he now lives in Paris
• Founded in 1882, it is still going strong
• *Graduated in 1977, he went into industry
• ?Retired last year, he is busier than ever

Active participles are disallowed, or at least dubious, while passive ones are permitted.

But I do now agree that 'be born' is an oddity. Whether it is worth adopting the term 'deponent' for a single example I'm not sure. Note that deponent verbs in Latin are not only active in meaning, but some of them are even transitive. --ColinFine 19:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the definition of deponent is "passive in form, active in meaning," it is not a counter argument that be born functions like passive verbs but rather a supportive argument. The debate amounts to whether be born has an active meaning or a passive meaning. I think of it as having an active meaning, therefore meaning it a deponent verb. However, having searched my brain for any other deponent-like English verbs to no avail, I don't think it's worthwhile to impose the classification of deponent on just this one unusual verb.--El aprendelenguas 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lefebvre

How do you pronounce the French surname Lefebvre? I wondering about the peculiar bvr-cluster, since there are also the variants Lefevre (as in Adam LeFevre) and Lefebure (as in Francis Lefebure) - so is the v in Lefebvre a vowel or a consonant? --Janneman 17:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "Lefebvre" is the same as if the "b" wasn't there. But hang on, at TheFreeDictionary.com there are examples of Lefebvre and Lefèvre. According to them, they are almost equivalent. I have never heard "Levebure", but if I had to guess, it'd be that it's not the same as the others, but that the "u" sounds like in sur. Oh well, I'm sure someone who knows better will come along shortly. In the mean time, for your pronunciation pleasure, contemplate Lebesgue – even the "s" is silent! :-) —Bromskloss 18:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Same as Lefèvre. The "b" is and always was always silent. Americans sometimes pronounce it "le fee ver", but standard French is closer to "le feh ver".

The "b" is from before the Richelieu reform - a lot of French family names remained unchanged through the 17th century reform. In many cases, it's an affectation from Latin. During the French revolution, the spelling of your name could be indicative of your political preferences. The traditional spelling was a sign of counter-revolutionary tendencies; modernization, indicative of revolutionary and republican sympathies. (Victor Hugo discusses this in one chapter of Les Misérables, with respect to the name L'Aigle or Lesgles.) As a result, a lot people changed their names, but some key ones didn't. However, the French revolution never reached Canada, and it was less disruptive in Wallonia and western Switzerland, so you often see the older spellings preserved there. --Diderot 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the letter "v" wasn't consistently separated from "u" until the 18th century. So, Lefebure is just another archaic spelling of the same name. But, of course, once you start attending American public schools, you have to live with however your kindergarden teacher pronounces your name. So, if you write it with a "u", you and all the fruit of your loins are stuck with "le-fee-boor" til the end of time. --Diderot 19:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for sharing. —Bromskloss 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Every word a sermon in itself. --Janneman 20:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)