Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 April 18

= April 18 =

What do you call a person...
What do you call a person who can learn things and master them very quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.199.49 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Smart. kwami (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Intelligent, gifted, a quick study, protege, etc. Dismas |(talk) 04:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The word savant might also be useful. Steewi (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dismas, that word is prodigy. Protégé means something else.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 07:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad. Long day yesterday.  Dismas |(talk) 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A compromise: A prodigious protégé. Retarius | Talk 08:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A polymath with total recall? I'd call them lucky. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If they were a grammar genius they would know that they master things quickly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick learner. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

German help
I'm trying to discuss the God of Classical Theism in German, and can't find the word for Omnibenevolence (all loving) any where. Whould apreciate any help. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's our article Omnibenevolence. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that is in English...

While I'm asking, does anyone know how to say 'to be buggered' or 'to be up shit creek without a paddle'? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 10:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess the term used for "omnibenevolent" would be "allgütig" (in parallel with "allmächtig" (omnipotent) and "allwissend" (omnisapient)). I haven't ever encountered that term in German philosophical/theological texts, but it gets a fair share of google hits. As for your other questions, I'd translate "to be buggered" as "genervt sein" and "to be up shit creek..." as "in der Scheisse (or Kacke) sitzen" (although the latter is not quite as colorful as the English expression, it has pretty much the same meaning, is based on a similar metaphor and is a very common colloquialism). -- Ferkelparade &pi; 12:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would 'allkompassionisch' not work?--ChokinBako (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I don't think so...that's not a German word, I'm afraid. It might work as a neologism since most German people who know English and/or a bit of Latin would understand what it's supposed to mean, but "Kompassion" or "kompassionisch" are not normally part of German vocabulary -- Ferkelparade &pi; 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In support of Dr Ferkel: "Allgütig" is, indeed, the correct term used in the context of theology. You may also consider the term "barmherzig" / "Barmherzigkeit" (the latter being the noun) if you want to include the concept of mercy and compassion.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Genervt sein" I would translate as "to be bugged", not as "to be buggered". It may be tricky to find appropriate terms to be used in an academic discussion of monotheism with good old Joe Ratzinger.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Cookatoo, as always, speaks wisely; "to be buggered" in the sense of "I can't be buggered", I'd probably render as "Da hab ich nun wirklich keinen Bock drauf" or "das geht mir am Arsch vorbei", which both are (in ascending order) quite unsuitable for conversations with His Holiness (although those should probably be held in Latin, anyway). I assume from the English phrases used by Mr. Englishnerd that a certain levity of conversational style is sought for, for which the German phrases offered by me seem more or less appropriate -- Ferkelparade &pi; 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if we are talking about Christianity and priests here, I think 'to be buggered' is totally correct, but completely irrelevant to the question. --ChokinBako (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition?" --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryukyuan languages
"Nowadays, perceived as 'dialects', Ryukyuan languages are not often written. When they are, Japanese letters are used in an ad hoc manner."

Before Japanese annexation etc. etc., were Japanese letters used adhocly?68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the writing system is not ad hoc. It is actually phonetic, which is more than can be said for Japanese. In fact, the Ryukyu dialect preserves sounds and letters which are not used in modern Japanese.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, could you give me a list of letters "...which are not used in modern Japanese"? If you can't could you point me to somewhere I can?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the actual letters are basically 'wi', 'we', and 'yi' and 'ye', which you can find in a decent Japanese dictionary, but if you are interested in the language itself, try here. This has some info on the Shuri dialect.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Shur


 * Thanks; what graphemes were used to represent "...'wi', 'we', and 'yi' and 'ye' ... "?68.148.164.166 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not move your questions around. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ゐ・ゑ・ゐ for the first three, and for some reason my PC won't let me write 'ye', even though it is still used in some cases, far much more than the other three (as in 'yen' and 'yebisu' (the best beer in Japan)).--ChokinBako (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There never was a yi in Japanese, and ye disappeared before the creation of hiragana. You won't find them in any dictionary. Okinawan writing system does not discuss the pre-annexation writing system, only ad hoc competing modern conventions. It would be interesting to know how the Old Shuri kana system worked. —kwami (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there never was a 'yi', then why does my PC have a hiragana for 'yi'? True, though, I've only ever seen 'ye' in katakana.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you post an image? If it's really "yi", it isn't for Japanese. kwami (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ゐ I assure you it is Japanese. --ChokinBako (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's wi in Japanese. In one of the several ad-hoc Okinawan orthographies it's used as ( is not distinguished from  in Okinawan, just as in Japanese), where it contrasts with <い> for . kwami (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops! My mistake. I just read my original reply and found it appeared twice in my list. Sorry, it was late at night, or something. You are right, though. I have not been able to find 'yi'.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BOX or CARTON
Please define the difference between a BOX and a CARTON. Are the number of sides a factor? If so, how? Thank you,
 * Have you looked at dictionary definitions for box and carton (or the respective encyclopedia articles for boxes and cartons)? The words are often interchangeable, as they are not rigorously defined for most applications.  Some applications, however, are less suited for replacement; see, for example, egg cartons. &mdash; Lomn 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You could say that all cartons are a type of box, but not all boxes are cartons. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Until I read your neat differentiation, Jack, I was going to say that cartons are just large boxes. However, I recalled that there are both "moving cartons" and "moving boxes" and they are the same size and composition. Then there are "cartons of cigarettes" which are not cartons at all, or even boxes, but merely heavily wrapped multiple packs equalling a total of 200 cigarettes. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Boxes are definitely different from cartons. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which reminds me that the 1958 movie was produced by that box's sister. Perhaps unfortunately for her, the  Carton was not the type of carton to be getting inside boxes.  He had far, far better things on his mind.  Maybe that's why she kept on moaning "Best of times be damned!  This is the worst of times ...".  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cartons are always containers, right? But box means many things, the sport, to box someone in a parking space etc

According to one use, cartons are outer boxes that get shipped by container ships. The cartons may contain boxes, inner boxes. --Kjoonlee 13:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Random initial capital Letters
Hi, I've noticed in a few long-gone writers (Carlyle and Swift are two that come to mind) the Tendency of random capital Letters to invade the text, always accompanied by rhetorical Flourishes, for some reason or other (though I've never read an exerpt from Swift that was anything other than rhetorical flourish). Why do they do this? I'm quite sure it wasn't universal, so it it just an attempt at a curious and poetic (or semihumorous) mode of writing? Thanks 203.221.127.124 (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article "Capitalization" says that in the eighteenth century "all nouns and noun-like words" were capitalized, as was and is the practice in German. I wonder whether it wasn't a Hanoverian thing. The U.S. Constitution is like that.--Milkbreath (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, the practice is definitely pre-Hanoverian. Don't be fooled by modern editions that modernize capitalization practices, as they modernize spelling and punctuation practices. Traherne was already writing that way in the seventeenth century; and the early folios of Shakespeare capitalize a lot of "nouns and noun-like words" that wouldn't be capitalized today, though not as many as would come to be capitalized in later years. If you can read stuff that appears really small on a computer screen the sidebar "Capitalization" here gives some information, though it doesn't indicate how the practice originated in English. Deor (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)