Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 August 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< August 8 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 10 >
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] August 9

[edit] A member of Jehovah's Witnesses

Is the following usage grammatically correct and is it acceptable (for an article): "XYZ was a Jehovah's Witness." I found The Watchtower using it ("A Jehovah's Witness is aware that there is a risk of death [...]"), and saw it in a number of articles. But I also saw someone changing it to "a member of Jehovah's Witnesses". Which is preferable? Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Andy Ellison is a John's Child, but that he was a member of John's Children. If I buy something at Dick's Sporting Goods, I do not buy a Dick's Sporting Good. Not only is it wrong for singularizing a proper name, but also for being ungrammatical. If your neighbour is called John, and his eldest son is named Andy, you can say that Andy is "one of John's children", but not that he is "a John's child". Of course, if enough people keep saying "a Jehovah's Witness", it becomes correct.  --Lambiam 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
How about "Jermaine O'Neal wants to be a Laker"? Do you think "Laker" is a case of "singularizing a proper name"? I think terms like "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Lakers" resemble common nouns in nature, and can be singularized without much qualm.--K.C. Tang 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me, when referring to a member of a group of any kind it's best to do as the members of the group themselves do, and you can't always get there from first principles. I see the site watchtower.org has 1,460 hits for "Jehovah's witnesses", and at first sight it has eight for "Jehovah's witness", but when you look at the pages where they should be there aren't as many as eight, and some of the few which are there are quotations from outside the organization. However, there are no hits at all for "member of Jehovah's witnesses" (nor for "member of the Jehovah's witnesses") so that may also be wrong. If it helps, there are eight times as many Google hits for "Jehovah's Witnesses" as there are for "the Jehovah's Witnesses", so it seems the definite article isn't usually used. I'm left wondering what term Jehovah's witnesses themselves use to make the singular. Xn4 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not easily predictable. I have no problem saying John Lennon was a Beatle, but I'd never say David Byrne was a Talking Head. If the Watchtower itself uses "a Jehovah's Witness", I think we're safe using it too. (Or did you mean our article on the Watchtower used it?) —Angr 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think you're right. I misread it as a quote in footnote #134 of the article on Jehovah's Witnesses. I searched several JW sites, and, the context being obvious, they usually simply refer to a member as "a Witness". Most of Google's "a Jehovah's Witness" hits I checked were written by non-members. A former member even uses it in the title of her book (Awakening of a Jehovah's Witness). I did find JW's Glossary of American English Hacker Theocratese stating that, while not grammatically incorrect, it should perhaps be avoided. Anyhow, thank you all for your input. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If I had been the publisher of Awakening of a Jehovah's Witness, I should have tried to insist on that title, however much the author wanted Awakening of a Witness. From the marketing point of view, it gets a lot more people's attention. Xn4 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old and modern Greek

Would a person who speaks modern Greek be able to understand the speech of those who lived in the Byzantine Empire of about 1200 AD? Corvus cornix 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of it. It would be rather like an English-speaker of today trying to understand the English of Geoffrey Chaucer - certainly easier to do with the written language than the spoken language. Of course, many educated Greeks of the present day know both Classical Greek and Medieval Greek, but that rather bypasses your question. Xn4 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about an old question

Hello, I have a question about this question I've posted a while ago. The translations surrounded by the apostrophes, are they quotation marks or actually part of the text? Please forgive my cluelessness. --JDitto 05:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They are just quotation marks. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] English-to-Latin Phrase

Would anyone happen to know the Latin for "Cytherea, I summon you - send down your hand and bring us from this place"?

It is a long story. Thank you for your help! 72.73.139.180 14:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

How about "Cytherea, te advoco, tuam manum demitte et nos hinc deporta". Adam Bishop 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's good enough, though 'manum tuam' is a lot more usual than 'tuam manum'. Xn4 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
True. Also, deportare is not the best of classical Latin words. Adam Bishop 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You could use fac nos hinc exire, echoing the Latin of the Vulgate in Exodus 17:3.  --Lambiam 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In the Vulgate, again, Psalm 144 has extende manum tuam de excelso. That comes out in the King James Bible as Send thine hand from above, and in the metrical translation of Sternhold and Hopkins (1562) as Send down thy hand from heav'n above. Xn4 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Extende is better! Now that I think about it "demitte" implies that they want Cytherea to remove her hand from her body and send it to them separately, haha. Adam Bishop 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea that part of that phrase was in the Latin Bible. You guys are amazing!! 68.238.99.63 06:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

[edit] The Third Degree

Regarding the term "the third degree": What precisely does it mean? Or is it just generally "to question / interrogate strenuously"? Where does the phrase originate ... i.e., why is it called the third degree? Is there any analygous concept as the first or second degree? Or fourth, fifth, etc.? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

This is what is says at Third degree

In police interrogation, originally torture, then colloquially an intensive rough interrogation to extract information or a confession - the term "Third Degree" being an ironic reference to the Masonic ritual which involves a (symbolic) moral interrogation and illustation that right overcomes wrong.

--LarryMac | Talk 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- I read that, but it does not really answer my specific questions. In addition, what exactly does this phrase mean: "the term "Third Degree" being an ironic reference to the Masonic ritual which involves a (symbolic) moral interrogation and illustation that right overcomes wrong" ...? That is ... what is the ritual ... what is ironic ... where does the number three / third enter the equation ...? (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
Did you notice the following line on the page? Master Mason is the third and nominally highest degree within Freemasonry. As for "ironic", irony is a word frequently misused. I would generally not expect to find irony when encountering "ironic" on Wikipedia -- which is perhaps itself ironic, or perhaps merely (and ironically) proves my point. — Lomn 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

Regarding the titular phrase: What exactly does that mean? In other words, why are there three separate and distinct references to "truth"? Do they represent three separate and distinct nuances or specific / particular meanings of "truth"? Or is it merely a dramatic / poetic phrase? (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

"The whole truth" relates to lies of omission while "nothing but the truth" relates to the joint presence of truth and falsehood. The phrase as a whole (at least in court settings) relates to perjury. To my mind, however, invoking nuances of lying is not the same as declaring separate and distinct nuances of truth. On the other hand, the phrase is still arguably dramatic rather than pragmatic in nature -- the rules of perjury can apply independently of the truth phrase. — Lomn 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can speak the Truth without telling the Whole Truth (i.e. leaving out the inconvenient parts). Neither the Truth nor the Whole Truth explicitly excludes mixing in the odd lie, misrepresentation or exaggeration, hence the need for Nothing but the Truth. The Truth is a bit redundant, but stylistically, a three part list is best (as demonstrated in the previous sentence). Clarityfiend 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Lawyers like to get paid by the word, so they do a lot of redundant reduplication of things they've already repeated previously: "cease and desist", last "will and testament", "on or about", "null and void", "give, devise, and bequeath", "remise, release, and forever discharge", "aid and abet", "fit and proper", "unless and until", and so on. --Sean 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a myth. I recall hearing that those pairs come from post-Norman conquest England when English and French were both important languages and so legal documents often paired an English with a French word. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow Up

OK. "The whole truth" means ... tell the entire story -- both good and bad components -- and don't leave out the specific details that work against you. "Nothing but the truth" means ... tell only the truth and don't mix any lies in there. So far, so good? Then, what does the first term (simply "the truth") mean? Does it mean (a) [narrowly defined] -- a true/accurate statement that is not false; or (b) [broadly defined] -- the whole entire story? In other words, (a) means ... make sure each statement you offer is accurate ... versus, (b) means ... give us the full story and paint the whole picture. That being said ... look at the phrase: (1) the truth; (2) the whole truth; and (3) nothing but the truth. Doesn't # 1 already include and encompass both # 2 and # 3 ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro)

I'd say (a) is more accurate, but it's (2) and (3) that render (1) redundant, not vice versa. All that said, the truth phrase itself isn't the specific legal meaning, which is why I also noted that it serves a dramatic or symbolic role (though grounded in a practical rationale). Given that, my interpretation is no more or less correct than yours, as both are subjective. — Lomn 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
1 is don't lie, 2 is tell everything and 3 is be concise. If you tell the truth and the whole truth but you keep adding superfluous details then you are not telling "nothing but the truth". If I were to deconstruct this to have meaning that is what I expect it means - don't lie, tell me everything you know, don't waste time on rubbish that's not important to 'the truth'. ny156uk 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It would scan a lot better if it was written "I swear to tell the truth: the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" The 2nd and 3rd sections are just expanding on the first "truth" (2nd - no omissions, 3rd - no lies). Neil ム 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Great point, Neil. Interesting way to think about it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] nil einne (or éinne) - who recognises this? & Irish speakers

Firstly, is there anyone that recognises the phrase "nil einne" as meaning something in some other language? I choose my nick name a long, long time ago (in this galaxy) as I was told it was Irish for no one/nobody or something of that sort (can't remember exactly now). However, I later found out when someone understood my nick that it means the same thing in German (IIRC) so I'm interested if German-speaker or anyone else recognises the phrase.

Hopefully there are some Irish speaker here too since I'd also like to know a bit more about the Irish side. After looking thru dictionarys listed on Irish I was surprised to find I couldn't find the word. But a bit of searching came up with it here. It appears éinne may be an Irish word, but perhaps not the most commonly used one, am I right? Does 'nil éinne' sound like a correct Irish phrase to Irish speakers? And regardless, what would the most common translation be for nobody or no one in Irish? Finally could an Irish speaker provide a pronounciation guide for my nick?

Nil Einne 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't there is a word "nil" in German, although "null eins" would mean "zero one". For "no one" or "nobody", German uses "kein" or "niemand". Adam Bishop 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
German does have the proper noun Nil, which is the River Nile, but no einne (except as a terrible spelling of eine, the feminine form of ein, one).
I know very little Irish, but níl is a part of the verb to be, which is used for the word no. Strictly speaking, Irish doesn't have words for yes or no. Duine ar bith is a way to say no one, but there are other ways, such as níor... aon duine. Neamhdhuine is nobody in the sense of nonentity. The only Einne I know of (please remember, I don't claim any expertise here) is Éinne, one of the versions of the Irish name for St Enda of Aran. Xn4 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have the advantage of knowing absolutely nothing about Gaeilge, so here's what I found: "Nil einne beo nach bhfluair oilean, is trua a chas ma theigh" (most of this story is in English with Irish interspersions), two boards had "Nil einne ann nach feidir leis a bheith d'aon thuairim leat" and "ach nil einne ag caitheamh iad...". There's more - I found them by googling "nil einne" + "Gaeilge", and "nil einne" + "Irish". ---Sluzzelin talk 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Níl éinne in Irish means "no one is", i.e. it has a verb, but it's not really a complete sentence. The word for "anyone" is actually aon duine /e:n dinjə/, and is usually so spelled in written Irish, but in spoken Irish it's usually contracted to /e:njə/, and the spoken form can then be spelled éinne or aoinne. (It's sort of like writing gonna or wanna in English to indicate the spoken forms of "going to" and "want to".) As for German, I can't think of anything in German that's either spelled or pronounced similarly that means anything similar to the Irish. —Angr 17:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So éinne is a contraction of aon duine? Thanks, it shows the limitations of dictionaries! Xn4 18:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. It's listed in big dictionaries like Ó Dónaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla, but not in smaller ones. —Angr 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So if I wanted to call myself 'no one' or 'not anyone' should I have called myself something like nár éinne then? Nil Einne 02:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, nár is only used with verb forms. I don't think there really is a way to say "no one"/"not anyone" in Irish without a verb that is still unambiguously negative. It's sort of like French personne if you know French; personne has to be accompanied by negation of the verb (personne n'est ici, je n'ai vu personne), and if you just say it by itself, the negativeness can only be inferred from context. So in French you might say:
         A: Qui est là? (Who's there?)
         B: Personne. (No one)
The equivalent exchange in Irish would be:
         A: Cé atá ann?
         B: Duine ar bith.
So if you really want a user name that means "No one" in Irish, I'd suggest you go with User:Duine ar bith, but be aware that out of context it can also be interpreted as meaning "anyone". Does that make sense? —Angr 15:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)