Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 April 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< April 7 << Mar | April | May >> April 9 >
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


[edit] April 8

[edit] iris-out

What does iris-out mean? I can't find a definition even on Google. --Smokizzy 03:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the top "iris out" google matches is an explanation of Iris-In/Iris-Out from All Movie Guide. "Iris-out" effectually wipes the full image from the screen by seemingly closing the aperture decreasing the size of the picture on the screen until it becomes a circular point of light, eventually going to black. jnestorius(talk) 03:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Smokizzy 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punjabi words

What does "Chak De" and "Punjabi Virsa" mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.84 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Icelandic runes

I know that Younger Futhark was used in Scandinavia, but which variant, specifically, was used in Iceland? Was it the Danish version, or the Norwegian one? --Śiva 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the article Younger Futhark, it is not clear whether the two variants were really regional variants or whether they were instead functional variants (one for stone, the other for wood). If they were regional variants, it is likely that Iceland would have used the Norwegian one, because during the period of Younger Futhark use (from around 800 until superseded by Medieval runes around 1100), Iceland was part of the sphere of influence of Norway, rather than Denmark. It was settled by Norwegians, and its main connection to the rest of Scandinavia was through Norway. Norway (and its dependency, Iceland), were not united with Denmark until 1397, after the Younger Futhark had passed out of use. Marco polo 14:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Be or To Have Been... a Brother

Take two brothers, person A and person B, and B is deceased. Why is it that in many languages, as with English, one says that A's brother was B? Why is it that the status of brotherhood between two siblings has to be lost when one dies? Onthologically, wouldn't being a brother once make one be a brother forever, whether alive or dead?--JLdesAlpins 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's precisely because fraternity is permanent that it is not necessary to use the present tense; "B was my brother" implies, not that B is no longer my brother, but rather that B is deceased. OTOH, "B was my husband" could mean either we are divorced or he is deceased; hence "ex-husband" and "late husband" to resolve the ambiguity. jnestorius(talk) 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless we have a major medical breakthrough, being a "late husband" is also rather permanent. So would you say "B was my late husband" rather than "B is my late husband"?  --LambiamTalk 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A person's status of being dead is a present and ongoing situation. So I think that when referring to a deceased spouse, one might say "Bob was my husband (but he died three years ago in a freak car-waxing accident)" or "Bob is my late husband." But because a dead person isn't doing much currently, you might also say, "that orbital waxer belonged to my late husband" rather than "that orbital waxer belongs to my late husband." Crypticfirefly 22:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Language isn't about logic. Words like "brother" are not mathematical arguments and tenses (and other functional elements or forms) only superficially resemble mathematical operators, mapping logical relationships. There is only a superficial resemblance. In other words, don't expect tenses to act like time indicators relating things in the real world. What happens is that words relay information in a kind of indeterminate way, which is only determined in the brain. The most reasonable way to construe "he was my brother" is that the brother is dead. That's why it works. mnewmanqc 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Bob was my late husband" would suggest resurrection has occurred. Even if she had divorced Bob and he later died, she would still use the present tense to say "Bob is my late ex-husband". JackofOz 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
All this leaves the question open: when, in admittedly non-logical natural language, is it idiomatic to use the past tense in the copula for deceased subjects. The criterion is apparently not simply the proposed permanence of the relationship given by the predicate, as evidenced by the counter-example of the late husband; in fact, another contributor argues the opposite, but that does not conform to the case of the deceased brother. Two aspects appear to enter: Permanence of the relationship ("P"), and eXplicitness with which the predicate implies that the subject died ("X"). A possible criterion is: mark for past tense unless both P and X. This even explains the resurrection implied by "Bob was my late husband"; since "late" implies X, and the past tense implies NOT(P AND X), we conclude to NOT P: Bob has ceased to be the speaker's late husband. If Bob was still dead, he would still be the speaker's late husband. Therefore, Bob is.  --LambiamTalk 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I would never, ever say "Bob is my late husband", except to be sardonic ("Who's this 'Bob' guy who's in all your family pictures?" "'Bob' is my late husband, you ignorant twat.") . I probably wouldn't use "late husband" in this construction at all ("Bob was my husband" is more natural), but if I did I might use "Bob was my late husband" in recounting a story about the past that takes place after my husband died. ("I had to get all of Bob's affairs in order -- Bob was my late husband, you see -- before the marriage with Harry could proceed.") Tesseran 07:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In the phrasing "Bob is/was my late husband", "Bob" is the existing information and there are two pieces of new information, i.e. "husband" and "dead". It's unlikely the listener will be aware of "Bob" and yet unaware of both "husband" and "dead". In those unusual circumstances I think it would be more natural to give the two new items separately, e.g. "Bob was my husband; he passed away 3 years ago".
Lambiam's (and I guess JLdesAlpins's) general question, when does one use the present tense with a deceased subject, is an interesting one: there must be research on this somebody can quote. No doubt this varies considerably between languages. Some English examples with present tense:
  • Bob is deceased. [copula + "dead"]
  • Bob is buried in Mountpleasant. [ metonymy for corpse]
  • Bob is in heaven, he watches over his family and prays for us. [life after death]
  • Bob is sadly missed; he is commemorated by this fountain. [passive]
  • Elvis is my favorite singer. [semantically similar to passive: "was" would imply I've changed my mind]
  • Dickens is always worth rereading. [metonymy for oeuvre]
  • Elvis holds the record for most hit singles, is one of the all-time greats, and never goes out of fashion. [legacy]
And with past tense:
  • Bob was my brother / my husband
  • Bob was six feet tall / Jewish / afraid of spiders
jnestorius(talk) 10:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)