Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 August 23

= August 23 =

Unser Vater - German Our Father prayer
Has the German version of the Our Father undergone any revisions within the last century or so. I have heard two versions and I am wondering which one is more recent or popular, unfortunately I dont have them available. One starts Unser Vater, in den Himmel, Dein Name werde geheilegt, dein reich komme, dein wille geshehe... If this piece is enough by which to judge, is this the newer, more common, revised, or unrevised version? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.7.97 (talk)
 * The German Wikipedia entry Vaterunser shows a couple of different versions. My German isn't great, but it appears that different versions are used in different churches. I can't tell one is newer or older or more or less common, though. - Eron Talk 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In English, by the way, we tend to call it the Lord's Prayer. 80.254.147.52 11:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In English, you tend to call it the Lord's Prayer. In English, while being aware of the use 'the Lord's Prayer', I have always known it as the 'Our Father'. Horses/courses :) Skittle 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Unser Vater ..." is more recent, used in some Reformed churches, but less common in everyday reference. The Lord's Prayer itself is called "das Vaterunser", one copulative compound word. The possessive "unser" is prepositional in modern German. (Unser Mann in Havanna, for example) Like many famous bible quotes, the postpositional "Vater unser ..." sounds archaic to modern ears. The famous 6th century Gothic translation found in the Codex Argenteus uses the same word oder:  Atta unsar, þu in himinam...  ---Sluzzelin  talk  13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the first part of the one translation you quoted should be Unser Vater in dem Himmel, dein Name werde geheiligt.... The New Apostolic Church has used this and will continue to use it until Pentecost next year (then what?), and it's from a 1912 Luther bible edition, but it continues slightly differently. "In dem Himmel" instead of "im Himmel" is less common and does sound a bit old as well. There are newer translations which retained the initial "Vater unser" word oder. I suppose we'd need more on the other versions to determine which is the oldest. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew 6:9-13 has been translated from Greek (or Latin) into German many times in the last century. There's the Revised Elberfelder Version (always popular), the Gute Nachricht Bibel (yuck!), and the Buber-Rosenzweig (my favorite), just to name a few. Are you asking if the Roman Catholic version of the Our Father, as recited at mass in Germany, has changed? Some really good information is here. Also, note that the "original" Our Father appears in both Matthew and Luke, and the wording isn't exactly the same. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Further
When using the word further, is there a word furtherest? I know there is a farther and farthest. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.230.21 (talk)


 * farther is to farthest as further is to furthest. Hope this makes sense! DuncanHill 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not, however, a word furtherest. -Elmer Clark 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * However, a furtherist is one who furthers something ... :) Corvus cornix 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Far, farther, farthest ___, further, furthest Can anyone fill in the blank? – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Far. Interestingly, farther, farthest are variants of further, furthest, and not derived from far. Further derives form the Old English furthor, which in turn is from fore or forth, with the comparitive suffix -ther. Farther is from the Middle English ferther, a varient sp of further. There is a word furth, meaning forth or outside of, which is a Scottish variant of forth. (From Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edition). DuncanHill 22:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Book review
what are the classification of book review?


 * Could you clarify the question? There are many classification systems; do you have a particular one in mind? If not, a specific usage of the classification? Are you asking for a classification to be assigned to  book reviews, or for classifications being used in book reviews? --Lambiam 05:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit
Sanskrit is a very well established language with millions of books written in this language. Is there any policy here at Wikipedia that a third party Sanskrit-to-English reference book explaining the Sanskrit verses to English audience required? Can a Sanskrit-to-English dictionary be used in order to explain the Sanskrit verses? Can the word to word interpretation from a Sanskrit-to-English dictionary suffice here? What method is currently being used to interpret sentences from a French Book. What are the policies regarding the same with regards to translating established French Books? BalanceRestored 06:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm almost positive we don't have a policy per se on this. If you want to cite a Sanskrit verse in an article, it's probably best to provide your own translation of it, since someone else's translation (if recent enough) will be copyrighted. If you do use someone else's translation, make sure the translation's copyright has expired (published before 1923 in the U.S., or the author has been dead more than 70 years), and cite it. —Angr 06:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been showing sentences from well know and well established Sanskrit literatures at talk pages using dictionary, but I've been asked by fellow editors to get the sentences explained from an ISBN English author. Is this generally done with every other language??? Is this generally required?BalanceRestored 06:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy actually forbids the use of copyrighted material, even if it would normally be allowed under the fair use doctrine, if a "free alternative" is or could be available. A translation by an advanced-level Sanscreature would be such a free alternative. --Lambiam 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, wouldn't a translation be a derivative work, and therefore not "free?" Given that, I see no problem with using a copyrighted translation, as long as you stay within fair use guidelines. -Elmer Clark 08:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My assumption was that the original Sanskrit works were written many centuries ago, and are by now free of copyright. Recent published translations, however, are typically not free. --Lambiam 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, ok. Still, this seems a little silly - I would consider this a WP:IAR situation - it's a little unreasonable to expect us to provide our own, unprofessional, unreliable translations when published ones exist and can be cited through fair use... -Elmer Clark 10:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't agree with the policy, but nevertheless, it is policy, not a guideline, and it is rather emphatic about this. --Lambiam 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A good reason for the policy in this case is that different rules apply for poetry, including translations of poetry, which may not generally be cited without the author's permission. Since much or most Sanskrit literature qualifies as poetry, its recent translations cannot be republished without permission.  Marco polo 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Two questions. First, doesn't "free alternative" mean "free equivalent"? I think translations of difficult primary texts by Wikipedian language students can get problematic (even tending towards inappropriately original work). So, if there's a public domain translation that equally well makes the point, I'd use it, but otherwise I'd quote and cite a copyrighted translation. Second, I get livid every time I see secondary sources thanking publishers for permission to quote & discuss poems. Surely this is just the publishing industry's orgy of mutual love & not a fast legal principle? I would not think twice about quoting poetic translations, especially, something that is routinely done in scholarly work, journalism (I don't think all the pundits are doing their own translations of Thucydides and Sophocles), etc. (I realize that if a poet primarily writes haiku, and everyone on the internet quotes and discusses their favorite one, a substantial part of the poet's work has been made available for free, but I'm still suspicious of the rule in general form.) Does anyone think there's something wrong with what I did at Praxilla? (I could have made my own virtually identical translation, but I wouldn't have wanted to intrude my personality into the encyclopedia so directly, when I can choose a recognized reference instead.) I can't really find the strict view in the linked policy. Wareh 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The copyright-holders of translations frequently enforce their copyrights aggressively, and there have been successful lawsuits. In the eyes of the law, a translation of Dante's Inferno into English is just as much a copyrightable creative work as a screenplay based on the work. It's absolutely against Wikipedia policy to use non-free, copyrighted translations, and for good reason. It could generate a lawsuit just as easily as any copyvio. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to take your example, The Divine Comedy quotes from at least ten non-free, copyrighted translations. Even though those quotations are quite gratuitous (I tried to take them out once, but I got reverted), it would, in general, bring all English-language discussion of foreign literature to a screeching halt if such an "absolutely against" policy were applied.  Fortunately, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia policies countenance limited "acceptable use"; if they did not, it would be a very remarkable (and crippling) difference between Wikipedia and the world of academic publishing, print encyclopedias, etc.  Wareh 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of verses - I've noted that sometimes meaning of english translation is totaly different from original (one example I rememember is here ) especialy in works like poems and such, so if one is trying to explain meaning of words it could be dificult if there's such a diference, I guess in such case one could use profesional translation along with their own. Also author of the question probably meant explenation of each word in a sentence (e.g. ice stands for frozen water), which might be even less wrong, if only definition is given - each can be referenced, however if one wants to explain by analysing these definitions it seems to turn in to original research again Xil/talk 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Irregular nouns and apostrophes
I couldn't find anything at apostrophe so I decided to ask here. When one has an irregular noun and an apostrophe, is it true that it is always apostrophe-s? As in, men's is correct while mens '  is wrong? What if one has groups of men and women? I thought that men's would refer to all the men as a whole, while mens' would refer to the groups of men (not individually) as s '  would "attach" itself to men? x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the rules given under Possessive apostrophe kind of sum it up. Assuming that you have a plural that does not end in an s, the second bullet tells you to add an apostrophe + an s to get the possessive. So mens '  is wrong. --Lambiam 10:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As Lambiam said, the point being that there is no word mens. DuncanHill 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. x42bn6 Talk Mess  11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But to contrast, "Everybody needs money, and people's need for money can be a very important force in life." A crappy sentence, but the point is that people refers to "everybody", as the plural of person. Then we have "In the world today there are hundreds of cultural groups, and peoples' need for individual recognition can be an important force in politics." Another really bad sentence, but the point is that each individual people, or cultural group, has a need, so we're talking about the needs of the peoples. The reason we can say peoples'  but not mens'  is, as noted above, because peoples is a word but mens is not. Tesseran 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Except in Latin, eg. Mens sana in corpore sano (two attributes I do not claim). --  JackofOz 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * People, though, is not the plural of person (that's persons). People can be a plural noun meaning a group of humans; or a singular noun which can be pluralized (as in peoples of the world). Bazza 15:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bazza is committing the etymological fallacy. The plural of person is people for most purposes and persons in a few restricted senses only.  The fact that people also exists as a singular noun in other senses and has the same origin is irrelevant.  --Anonymous, August 25, 05:51 (UTC).

Japanese translation: seeking sources about Yuji Ide to add to Wikipedia article
Is anyone who knows Japanese willing to help me find some texts about Formula 1 driver Yuji Ide? I am seeking info about Yuji's personal life to add to the article. If you can find URL's with info, I can take them through the free Babelfish translation service to read the information in broken English.

Anyone have any ideas on finding someone to pitch in some help finding URLs with info on Yuji's personal life in Japanese?

Guroadrunner 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is our very own wikipedia-jp article about the bloke here, if that helps. I also found this page with info about him. It might not be much about his personal life, as such, but it's a start, maybe. If you need help with the translating, contact me on my page and I'll be glad to help out. --Manga 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Letters Patent
The letters patent article states that due to the Latin idiom involved, a single document is not a "letter patent" but still "letters patent."

Is this correct, and is it correct in all variants of English and other languages that use this term? Would it be valid to google and replace all occurrences of "letter patent" in this context with "letters patent"? — PhilHibbs | talk 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's correct. Replacing every "letter patent" with "letters patent" would probably do more good than harm, but it would be better to review each instance, in case something else needs to be corrected at the same time. For instance, 'letter patent' may have an 'a' in front of it, and if it's the subject of the sentence the verb may need correcting, too. Xn4 14:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are different schools of thought on this. Some style guides say you should respect foreign grammar when using foreign phrases in English, while others say you shouldn't need to know any language other than English to use English correctly. "Hoi" means "The" in Greek, but Hoi Polloi is now an English phrase (derived from Greek). The sentence "I have no respect for the hoi polloi" may make Greek speakers cringe, but many style guides say that it's correct English. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough, but letters patent has been around in the English language for at least six hundred years. For instance, it appears in documents written for Henry V in English. It should be naturalized by now! Xn4 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, INS is notoriously slow. . . ;-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The La Brea Tar Pits, in which la brea means "the tar", results in "The the tar tar pits". Corvus cornix 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, "PIN number". &mdash;Tamfang 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can satisfy both principles by refraining from using expressions that you don't understand; for example, to avoid the problem of "(the) hoi polloi" say "the masses". &mdash;Tamfang 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To understand a word and to understand all the details of its etymology are very different things; following your suggestion would render almost all speech impossible. Tesseran 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you call this?
Yesterday, my little boy dropped a tape dispenser, and it came apart. He handed it to me and I put it back together, removed some tape and taped it together so it wouldn't fall apart again. This got me thinking that there must be a word or phrase to describe this. What is it called when you use a tool to fix itself? Thanks, --Czmtzc 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it could be seen as a form of self-reference, and for some reason it reminded me of the barber paradox. The term "self-amendment" exists in law, but I've never heard it applied to mechanical tools. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Self-healing (with a little assistance)? --Lambiam 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, speaking of self-reference: Do you think the last sentence in that article provides a good example of self-healing? "In the case of Wikipedia, self-healing is accomplished by the collective efforts of individuals working on the system. " ---Sluzzelin talk  19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Random related thing: RepRap Project —Keenan Pepper 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The words "bootstrapping" and "recursion" come to mind, but aren't exactly on point. Other random related thing: David J. Gingery wrote a series of books on how to build a machine shop from the ground up (each tool can be built with the previously-built tools).  He starts with a small foundry and moves up.  --Sean 13:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
What is the origin of the phrase "keep yor eyes peeled"?
 * The OED says it originates in U.S. colloquial language and has a text example from 1852. It seems obvious that this is an extension of the primary meaning of peeled given as stripped of skin. Stefán 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be my guess that the eyelids are what is kept peeled. Marco polo 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the skin stays on the eyelids. But the eyelids stay retracted so the eyeballs themselves are bare. —Angr 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn! I've been doing it wrong! – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have or Haven't
What is more correct, "You have seen nothing yet" or "You haven't seen nothing yet"?


 * You ain't seen nothing yet. DuncanHill 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with You ain't heard nothing yet. —Angr 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More seriously, though, in Standard Written English, "You haven't seen anything yet" would be the 'correct' way to phrase what you're trying to say. In more informal speaking, especially in certain dialects (such as African American Vernacular English), saying things like "you ain't seen nothing yet" or "you haven't seen nothing yet" are correct --Miskwito 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast. Thanks a lot!


 * Some people, particularly the Scots, say "You've not seen anything yet". --  JackofOz 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which reminds me of Dylan's Quinn the Eskimo - Come on without, Come on within, You've not seen nothin' like the Mighty Quinn. --  JackofOz 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)