Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 July 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< July 9 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 11 >
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] July 10

[edit] Lead Factory Worker

Is a person who works in a lead factory called a leader, and if so how would you pronounce it?

Why, pronounce it as in leady, of course.--K.C. Tang 03:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that word is used, but it would be pronounced [ˈlɛd.ɚ] or [ˈlɛd.ə] if it were used. Mike Dillon 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Pronunciation would naturally depend on the dialect of the speaker. Generally, lead workers are not called "leaders". If they were called "leaders", it would likely be pronounced much like "ledders" (another non-word). The Jade Knight 03:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a verb to lead (pronounced [lɛd]), with meanings: (1) to cover with lead, (2) to insert leads between [the text lines], or (3) to fix [glass] with lead cames. Meaning (2) gives rise to the noun leading ([ˈlɛdɪŋ]). A noun leader, in the meaning of someone whose occupation or main activity is to perform one of these activities, would be a regular word formation in English. Hoever, it appears not to be in common use, and is not recorded in several dictionaries. I would not be surprised, though, if it is found in the OED.  --LambiamTalk 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A version of "leader" related to lead actually does occur in the OED. It's listed as obsolute archaic, and the only entry for it is dated to 1440. It means "a plumber" (I'm guessing it's related to plumbers working with lead piping). The Jade Knight 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Sea

Why is the Dead Sea called the Dead Sea? Is there something "deadly" about salinity? Or is it because Sodom and Gomorrah had seaside property, and were righteously smoten by the hand of the LORD? Obviously, doing a good job of smiting requires dealing a heavy hand of Death. Is there some linguamythic connection between salt and death? Thanks in advance. 208.114.153.254 04:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Dead Sea#Flora and fauna, "the sea is called 'dead' because its high salinity means no fish or macroscopic aquatic organisms can live in it". (I'm about to reword that, though, since it sounds like fish aren't macroscopic aquatic organisms.) —Angr 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
kthx. 208.114.153.254 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This, That, These, Those.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was reading [1] and was wondering concerning the following example, that is often used but usually with a different object:

Who owns that house? (distant)
Is this John's house? (near)

Isn't this open to individual interpretation ? For example, a person could find that a house is distant while another would find that it isn't. --Matt714 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is, yes, but I think in practice it'd be quite clear. If you're about to enter John's house, for example, you'd always say "this". If you're right up next to it, but are walking past it, you could probably use either "this" or "that", it doesn't much matter. --Richardrj talk email 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt, since your first language is French, perhaps you could explain to us the difference between ceci and cela; and in doing so you may reach a greater understanding of this and that. —Tamfang 18:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can the word "being" may be dropped from a title of a picture

I came across a picture with a title: "The Mars Climate Orbiter is prepared for its mission. ..." The picture really shows that the Orbiter is under preparation. So I feel that the title should have been: The Mars Climate Orbiter is being prepared for its mission. ...Is there a convention that the word "being" can be dropped from a title? Can anyone point me a web-page where I can learn about the grammar of titles?

Thank you very much. 196.12.53.9 06:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

The caption is fine in English without the word 'being'. With the word 'being' included, it reads more like a part of a story. Without the 'being', it refers directly to the picture, i.e. this is what the picture shows. It's hard to explain, as you can tell! --Richardrj talk email 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd tend to make the caption "The [object] being prepared for its mission", dropping the verb "is" altogether. Less wordy. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with both alternatives is that they are in the passive voice, which should be avoided as far as possible. If the picture shows technicians working on the orbiter, for example, I would make the caption "Technicians prepare [or preparing] the Orbiter for its mission". --Richardrj talk email 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Passive voice is an important part of English (and other languages!). Sometimes it is overused, but here it is quite clear: using the passive voice makes the orbiter the topic of the sentence. The question at hand, though, is not about voice but about aspect: specifically the progressive aspect. For example (with verb phrase in bold):
  • 'The Mars Climate Orbiter is [infl. form of 'be'] prepared [past participle] for its mission'
    • Passive voice → inflected form of 'be' + past participle
  • 'The Mars Climate Orbiter is [infl. form of 'be'] being [present participle of 'be'] prepared [past participle] for its mission'
    • Passive voice with progressive aspect → inflected form of 'be' + 'being' + past participle
In English, the progressive aspect adds immediacy to the sentence — it's happening right now. Its use is quite common in speech (compare 'I play football' with 'I am playing football'), but is not as necessary in headings and captions because the body text or picture, respectively, fill out the details. — Gareth Hughes 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The simple (non-progressive) present tense in English usually has some timeless sense. In a photo caption, it describes what is going on in the moment of the photograph, which is frozen out of the real time-stream. We also use the simple present tense for habitual actions ("I work barefoot") and for the scheduled future ("my flight arrives at 7:41"). —Tamfang 18:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Oftentimes'

Is this word only an Americanism, in a sentence such as "Oftentimes, I would go jogging in the park"? I've never heard spoken it in British English, where we would simply use 'often'. But I frequently hear 'oftentimes' being used by Americans. --Richardrj talk email 10:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I too have never heard it used in British English, tho' Chambers Dictionary (1983 ed.) does list it without comment. DuncanHill 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Chambers can be a bit old fashioned, so it somewhat explains the opening remark of the entry in OED: 'Now chiefly N. Amer.; otherwise arch. or literary'. — Gareth Hughes 11:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit harsh on Chambers - it's always been my favourite dictionary, and with its famous humorous definitions it's also one of the least conventional. The previous poster does point out that he was quoting from the 1983 edition, so the word may have been less archaic then than it was in 2004, when the OED definition you cite was drafted. --Richardrj talk email 11:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of having heard it in the US, either. Maybe among old people… The Jade Knight 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I quite like Chambers too, but it is fond of words so archaic that you could never get away with it. The OED definition is 2004, but I don't know how long that definition has been up. Unfortunately, it is difficult to back up the North American claim from OED's quotations. I, a Brit, have used the word before, but this maybe because I'm archaic with literary pretensions. — Gareth Hughes 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've often heard it from Americans, and it always makes me cringe. I've never thought of it as "archaic" and "literary", though; I think of it a solecism and it requires great self-control on my part to refrain from slapping the person who said it. (Yes, I'm an anti-prescriptivist, can't you tell?) —Angr 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm American and I do occasionally hear it. I would not say it's a standard usage - it's used more by less-educated speakers, I'd guess. Funnyhat 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Jamia al Masjid

What does this mean? For reference, it was written on the front of a Mosque near where I grew up in the US. Sorry if I didn't spell it right, but that is what I remember it as.

Thanks, Czmtzc 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a public mosque. مسجد (masjid) is the usual Arabic word used for a mosque, whereas جامع (jāmi`) can also refer to a mosque it usually represents a larger, more collective building. The two words are put together, usually as مسجد جامع (masjid jāmi`) for a main, central mosque used for جمعة (jum`ah), Friday prayer. — Gareth Hughes 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK great. That would explain why they built a much larger building just down the street a couple of years ago. Czmtzc 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the order مسجد جامع (masjid jāmi`) a fair bit, but, to get closer to your original statement, جامعة المسجد (jāmi`at al-masjid) would mean 'the congregation/community of the mosque'. — Gareth Hughes 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, looking at the arabic script you provided, it looks like the words are reading right to left, correct? So what would it mean if it was al Jamia above al Masjid? In other words does Arabic read right to left / bottom to top? Czmtzc 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Arabic reads right to left, top to bottom. —Angr 19:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks, then, like they are not meant to be read a single phrase, but as separate words for 'mosque'. Al-Jamia (الجامعة al-jāmi`ah) means 'the congregation/community', and al-Masjid (المسجد) means 'the mosque' (usually in the sense of a simple, private mosque). As I said before, the usual wording would be al-Masjid al-Jami (المسجد الجامع al-masjidu 'l-jāmi`) for a grand mosque for Friday prayer. — Gareth Hughes 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
To add, there are dialectal differences. In Egyptian Arabic, جامع is the common word for mosque and is pronounced [gamɛʕ]. — Zerida 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for original Russian lyrics of Yugoslavia song by Lena Katina (Tatu)

Hello,

I hope this doesn't belong in "entertainment". Lena Katina (from Tatu) made a song (in Russian) about Yugoslavia. You can listen to it here: [2] I am looking for the original Russian lyrics (in the Cyrillic alphabet). That would be an interesting way to test my knowledge of the Cyrillic alpabet. But since my Russian is really really bad, I can't find my way (on my own) on the internet in Russian. So can anyone help me? Thank you very very much,Evilbu 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a link to the lyrics, but I realized soon after that it is on some kind of extreme right-wing site, so I removed the link. If you want to google for the words try Лена Катина Югославия Над вечерним and you will probably find them. --Cam 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. My experience with Russian sites is that being careful is wise. If anyone has a safe link, he will still be very welcome.Evilbu 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian lyrics, translations

Is there any source (online or otherwise) for the Bulgarian lyrics (and translations) of the songs made famous on the record Le Mystère des Voix Bulgares[3]? Wareh 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this is, but I found: this translation of four songs. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for ferreting that out! Wareh 14:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch, German, and Latin, O my!

I've recently finished reading a book about a boy living in Europe during World War II and his life afterwards (It's called The Assault by Harry Mulisch, and it's very good. I recommend it). There are periodical uses of Dutch and German which I have almost no idea what they mean. There is also for some reason some Latin phrases. I would liek to know what they mean so I can have a bette understanding of the story all around. I'm not completely certain that al lthese phraes are in only these three languages and I'm also nto certain that the languages I sorted them into are correct.

  • German
    • Aufmachen!..........................open up!
    • Vorzeigen.............................To produce or show (possibly a command: Let see!)
    • Schnell..................................Fast! or Quick!
    • Schweigensie........................Schweigen = silence to be quiet (i.e. not talk), sie = you, so "Shut up!" "Be quiet!"
    • Ach so....................................Aha or Okay [now I understand] / I see...
    • Das genugt............................That will do
    • Abführen...............................Abführung = payment abführen = to haul s.o. (e.g. a prisoner) off; a good translation would be "Take him away!"
    • Grüne Polizei........................ see Grüne Polizei
    • Scheisse.................................Shit!
    • Ja überhaupt.........................ja = yes, hauptmann = captain, so "Yes, over-captain" (or überhaupt = completely or totally) at all (used in a negative context, so then "not at all")
    • Ortskommandantur..............Local Military Administration
    • Bisschen Ruck-Zuck..............A bit of a heave-ho
    • Wehrmacht............................Wehrmacht = armed forces
    • Schmaltz...............................Schmaltz rendered goose or chicken fat used as a spread
    • Schmeckt..............................taste (of food) (It) tastes (well) / Yummy
    • Herr Fliegergeneral...............Air Marshall
    • Verflucintnochmal (??)...this should probably be "verflucht noch mal"="for christ's sake" (or something like that)
    • Scheissegal...........................It's all the same to me (I don't give a shit which one.)
    • Wehrmachtheim Erika............wehrmacht = armed forces, heim = home
    • Unerhört....................................Unheard of, outrageous, shocking
  • Dutch
    • Jammertal.................................. (German) "Vale of tears"
    • Lazarett.....................................(German) sick bay, hospital
    • Rijksmuseum.............................Rijksmuseum = national museum
    • Concertgebouw..........................Concertgebouw
  • Latin
    • Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi!.....read: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
    • Ethica: More Geometrico Demonstrata. Benedicta de Sopinoza.....(Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata is the title of a book by Baruch Spinoza) – and Ethica More Geometrico Demonstrata is an alternative version of the title (see e.g. http://www.filosofico.net/ethi1caspinozaa.htm)
    • De gustibus non est disputandum..............................................."there is no dispute about tastes"

Thank you very much for your help. schyler 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To take the Latin ones in order: See Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, Ethics (book) (see second paragraph), List of Latin phrases (A–E) (under De gustibus). Wareh 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Only "Rijksmuseum" (="state museum") and "Concertgebouw" (="Concert Building") are Dutch words. "Jammertal" and "Lazarett" are German. (Dutch words never have a double consonant at the end, or they'd have to be"imported words")Evilbu 20:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I added some more stuff.Evilbu 21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I added a couple German translations. Marco polo 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a better translation of the last Latin phrase would be "there is no arguing about taste" or, more colloquially, "to each his own". Marco polo 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Marco, yes that sounds a lot better! DuncanHill 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
More literally/precisely, Tastes are not to be debated. —Tamfang 18:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
And I've corrected a few of the German translations. BTW a good place for German/English translations is LEO. --Dapeteばか 08:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
And Leo is where I got some of the translations which have subsequently been changed! DuncanHill 08:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note on schmaltz above: In Jewish cuisine, schmaltz is poultry fat, but when gentile Germans talk about Schmalz (spelled without the t), they're more likely referring to lard (which Jews traditionally don't eat since it comes from pigs). The meaning "excessively sentimental or florid music or art or maudlin sentimentality" is also present in German, so it may mean that in the context where you read it. —Angr 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Three more minor points:
It should be das genügt (not das genugt)
It should be Schweigen Sie! (the initial S in honorofic Sie is captialized.)
To me, ein bisschen ruck zuck (I'd spell it in minuscules and without a hyphen. Duden recommends "ruck, zuck!") means something along the lines of (let's do it) "quickly, in a jiffy, with military speed". ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possessive Form

A question above referred to the film Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures. Which prompts my question. What indeed is the proper form when one is indicating multiple possessive, as in the Bill and Ted example. Is it Bill and Ted's ... Bill's and Ted's ... or either is correct? Extending that to three people: This is Tom, Dick, and Harry's hometown. OR This is Tom's, Dick's, and Harry's hometown. OR Either is correct? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

To stay with the Bills and Billys, not only do we have Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures, but also Bill and Peter's Bogus Journey and Billy & Mandy's Big Boogey Adventure. This is quite idiomatic. If you write Bill's and Al's Memorable Adventures in Washington, you suggest that each had, separately, their own memorable adventure. In Bill and Al's Memorable Adventures they had their adventures together. And here is, for you, all in rhyme, Tom, Dick and Harry's Moon Adventure.  --LambiamTalk 14:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We have a rather messy article on the Saxon genitive (a rather outdated name), and a better one at apostrophe. In truth, either is correct, but the two ways of forming the possessive make subtle changes in meaning. The possessive clitic can be added to the end of a noun phrase, as in "someone else's problem", where someone else is a two-word noun phrase taking the possessive (i.e. "the problem of someone else"). Thus, it is equally possible to add a single possessive clitic to a noun phrase that is two or more possible possessors in conjunction. I suppose you could think of "Bill and Ted's excellent adventures" as meaning "the excellent adventures of Bill and Ted", and "Bill's and Ted's excellent adventures" as "the excellent adventures of Bill and of Ted" — separating the noun phrase makes the excellent adventures belong to each separately. Because using just a single clitic is simpler, it is more idiomatic not to separate the noun phrase. Thus, where one says "This is Tom's, Dick's and Harry's hometown", one is emphasizing the statement that all three, individually, come from that place. — Gareth Hughes 14:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My father told me once that a recent groom thanked him for playing the organ "at Lisa and I's wedding". —Angr 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Where is the groom from if I may ask? — Zerida 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
He got married in Texas. I don't know if that's where he grew up. —Angr 07:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need a Dutch reader

Is there any evidence from [4] that the content may be redistributed? A few people are trying to add a YouTube link (with English subtitles) to an article, which I've been removing as an external copyvio per policy. Decided to check myself if there's any evidence they may be redistributed since I'm doubtful the people adding it are going to Nil Einne 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a page on the site, referred to from every other page, stating in Dutch: Copyright Deze website inclusief de gepubliceerde informatie valt onder het auteurs-, naburig en databankenrecht van Omroepvereniging VARA. Verveelvoudiging en/of openbaarmaking, anders dan voor eigen niet-commercieel gebruik overeenkomstig onze gebruiksvoorwaarden, zijn zonder de voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van Omroepvereniging VARA niet toegestaan.(© Omroepvereniging VARA, 2004).[5] I don't understand all of this, but I think this is saying something along the lines of: "This website including the published information is copyright VARA Broadcasting Association. Copying except for private non-commercial use ... is not permitted". In any case, with or without such a statement, the copyright of the material is by default the maker's; any users should show that they are using it with permission, instead of us having to show no such permission exists. I could imagine, though, a possible fair-use argument.  --LambiamTalk 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My Dutch is minimal, but here is a full translation of the text above:
"Copyright This website, including the published information, falls under the author, neighbor [?], and data bank rights of the broadcast association VARA. Copying and/or publishing [of this material], other than for one's own noncommercial use in agreement with our use restrictions, are not permitted without the prior written agreement of the broadcast association VARA."
I think that it would expose Wikipedia to legal risk to post any of this information without written permission from VARA. Marco polo 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"Author's rights and neighboring rights" is a common way of saying "Copyright and other rights", IE . " "Intellectual property rights" ". Sortof like saying "Copyright (Copyr.) (C) (c) © [...] All rights reserved, including those of translation, especially into the Scandinavian languages, according to Act of Congress as the Act directs 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)" (Covering all possible bases). 68.39.174.238 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. BTW, as it turns out, whatever their policies on redistribution the youtube links appear to be okay as VARA/Kassa themselves link to them [6] Nil Einne 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A RIDDLE

I read a riddle which goes something like

"I am despised by knave and liar. After me the wise inquires. I rise above all death and fire. What am I?"

I am wondering if this riddle has an answer. If it does, then I wonder what.

Thank you if you can help me out with this.


The Soul? DuncanHill 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. a soul. but why will a soul be despised by a knave a liar?

Did you try Googling? I did ([7]) and got an answer, probably in less time then it took you to write out the question... Nil Einne 22:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say the truth.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't actually look at Nil Einne's response!  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 10:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, we all believe you. :) JackofOz 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but what do I have in my pocket? Donald Hosek 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My Preciousssssssssssssssss! DuncanHill 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe Slumglum, because I had it after the first two lines. The third line threw me off.-Czmtzc 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)