Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 13

= December 13 =

Is Juvatave a word?
I am wondering I was told that juvatave was a word is that true?
 * How were you told to pronounce it? I don't know the word, but I'll start off by pointing out that it could be two words in Latin. The verb "iuvat/juvat" ("favors", "is helpful to", see for example the articles on Meminisse Juvat or "audentis fortuna iuvat") and the salutation "Ave!". ---Sluzzelin talk  06:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether intentionally or otherwise, the tag Audaces fortuna iuvat could perhaps be run into ''Ave, Caesar!" Xn4  ( talk ) 06:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Deliberate misspellings
Why do so many people deliberately misspell "fail" as "phail" and "ever" as "evar"? 58.165.14.208 (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's part of their sociolect. Then why do they have that sociolect? That's because they use the Intarwebs. Then why do people use the Intarwebs? It's phun, that's why. --Kjoonlee 10:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite what the purists would like to have us believe spelling is not a static concept. Today's funny misspellings may be tomorrow's accepted spelling.  If you look at old(e) texts you'll find lots or words that used to be spelled differently.  Sometimes words got separated into two different ones because one group that used a certain definition started spelling it differently. (Sorry don't have a good example up my sleeve.)  So the fact isn't as new as the web. (People used to LOL b4, 2.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about "evar", but a person writing "phail" could be going for ironic value. That is, the failure is so bad it has even corrupted the word describing it (the effort to spell "fail" failed). -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lewis Carroll famously spelled "never" as "nevar" in one of his suggested answers to the raven writing-desk riddle... AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes to spelling mistakes, I say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stoan!" Matt Deres (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying to remember phrase meaning "willing domination by military"
I've been trying to remember a word that means "willing domination" on a full society level, like a widespread submission. I know military leaders in the past used this idea for conquering and keeping a group of people under their control, like in the Babylonian times.RS-113 (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the US, "collaborator" has come to mean someone who willingly cooperates with an enemy military force. Of course, the original meaning of "collaborate" is the same as "cooperate", meaning to work together, with no assumed evil intent. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Stratocracy is rule by the military. See also militarism (commonly used for Sparta, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and by leftists for the USA), military-industrial complex, militarization.  None of these particularly reflect willingness, but equally not the opposite (military dictatorship, martial law, junta, etc) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hegemony is sometimes used to mean similar. Matt Deres (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this sentence grammatically correct?
The following is a quote from Hitler's suicide note:

"I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe's Aryan peoples die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means."

Is this grammatically correct? It seems as if it's missing something after the list of "not only"s. That is to say that normally when someone says "Not only will A happen, not only will B happen, not only will C happen" the usually end with "but D will happen" and I don't see that here. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That, of course, is a translation from part of the German which Hitler dictated in the bunker to be typed up: it comes from the first part of the two-part 'Political Testament' which is appended to his last Will and Testament. As you say, in English "not only" is nearly also followed by "but...", although it isn't grammatically essential. I'll see if I can find the German original, but as we condemn the deeply unpleasant substance of what he said as he departed, we may be able to forgive any lapses of style, given all the circumstances. Strawless  (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on your description I found the following German text: Ich habe aber auch keinen Zweifel darüber gelassen, dass, wenn die Völker Europas wieder nur als Aktienpakete dieser internationalen Geld- und Finanzverschwörer angesehen werden, dann auch jenes Volk mit zur Verantwortung gezogen werden wird, das der eigentlich Schuldige an diesem mörderischen Ringen ist: Das Judentum! Ich habe weiter keinen darüber im Unklaren gelassen, dass dieses Mal nicht nur Millionen Kinder von Europäern der arischen Völker verhungern werden, nicht nur Millionen erwachsener Männer den Tod erleiden und nicht nur Hunderttausende an Frauen und Kindern in den Städten verbrannt und zu Tode bombardiert werden dürften, ohne dass der eigentlich Schuldige, wenn auch durch humanere Mittel, seine Schuld zu büssen hat.  - It's one of those convoluted German sentences that gets messed up the closer to literal your translation gets.  Let me try to sort it into separate phrases.  Furthermore I left no one in any doubt about the following facts.  This time around it would not only be a case of Aryan peoples suffering without the party actually guilty having to atone for their debt, albeit by more humane means.  There would not only be millions of children of Europe's Aryan peoples starving, not only be millions of grown men suffering death and not only hundreds of thousands on women and children be burnt in the cities and bombed to death.  - The "but" (holocaust) part is implied and taken from context.  If you tweak those phrases a bit you could probably get closer to the German without sacrificing clarity.  Agree with Strawless on the sickening nature of it. Hope this helps. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both your inputs. Out of curiousity, in the original German, how coherent is his political statement (within the confines that it's from a madman)?  In the English version, he seems remarkably composed and at times articulate considering he must realize that the war, the deaths of millions of people, the destruction of Germany was his fault, and the fact that he's about to commit suicide.  He stays remarkably on message about the Jews, England, etc..  He seems fairly composed for someone who's about to blow his brains out.  Is the English translation reasonably faithful to the German original or did the translator have to clean up his wording so it sounds relatively intelligent (again, within the confines of being from a madman)?  67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that either English translation is about as coherent (or not) as the original German. Marco polo (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Orwell could almost have had Hitler in mind when he wrote Politics and the English Language (1946). He notes that "...the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language", and suggests "If you simplify your English... when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself". And one of his conclusions is this: "Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Xn4  ( talk ) 05:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to suggest that complete clarity would have saved Hitler from his demons and his chaos, of course. He seems to have lived in an alternative universe in which his distorted vision of the Jews (and other minorities) was to him the absolute truth. Is that madness? But I'm sorry, I'm straying off the point.  Xn4  ( talk ) 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of the main point here, the English version given by the original poster is definitely ungrammatical due to incorrect parallelism. Either the third "not only" should be deleted or else it should have another "would" after it. --Anonymous, 05:20 UTC, December 14, 2008.


 * 67 There's no support for "he must realize that the war, the deaths of millions of people, the destruction of Germany was his fault" The German document actually starts out saying something like "Neither I nor any other German wanted to go to war." (Don't want to have to read that stuff again for a more verbatim statement.) He then continues to blame everything on the Jews. So, from that, one could conclude that he felt he would be -in his eyes wrongfully - held responsible.  Based on this document his suicide could not be seen as a sign of realization of responsibility, but rather as defeat to his conspiracy specters and arch-enemy paranoia.76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You bring up a good point, but there's a difference between what someone says and what someone believes. He seems very defensive as he lays out a case why it's not his fault which to me implies that he believes it is his fault.  Do we have an article on the psychology of Hitler or the mental state of Hitler?  67.184.14.87 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Study or studying?
Is either of these options more or less correct than the other?

"the affordable nature of study in the Netherlands" "the affordable nature of studying in the Netherlands"

Thanks Seans Potato Business 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither is exactly incorrect, at least from a grammatical point of view, although depending on the context they might be understood a little differently; I should turn the statement around to avoid the claim that 'study' (or 'studying') in the Netherlands has a 'nature' which is 'affordable' or otherwise. That is a very odd use of 'nature', because the cost of the studying is really not part of its nature, or natural character. Some students might have quite different costs, and it would also be possible to be oblivious to the costs. You seem to be dealing with the affordability of being a student in the Netherlands... if so, then I prefer the word 'studying' to 'study', but 'being a student' may be better, if that is what is meant. Would "the affordability of being a student in the Netherlands" express what you want to say? Strawless  (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's really just the tuition fees that are lower (than for a second degree in the UK). --Seans Potato Business 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There you are, we are getting to the point! So shall we mention the tuition fees? Strawless  (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Being lower doesn't necessarily make Netherlands fees affordable, just lower cost. How about "the lower cost of studying in the Netherlands".  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On a side note, study does not simply involve tuition fees, it also involves the trade off between study time and potential working time. We also have living costs (rent, food, energy bills, telephone, etc.), as well as the costs of socialising and relaxing. As Jack says, 'lower' can mean 'lower in cost', or it can mean 'more affordable'. It depends on what it is relative to. Also, as Strawless says, it is only affordable if you can actually afford it, and there are many who would not be able to. --90.201.241.8 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Priceless
Is "priceless" a good or bad thing? 58.165.14.208 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing. It means something's value is so high that no number can be attached to it.  67.184.14.87 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The complete opposite of "valueless". --  JackofOz (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the same as "invaluable". Isn't English great? rspεεr (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Priceless" has some uses where "invaluable" would be out of place. A little kid doing something unexpected that makes lots of people laugh (or cry) might be called "priceless" but not "invaluable".  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean "Is it a good word?" then for me very few words are good or bad in themselves, and as someone has said here before, "Not every question has an answer". But if you mean "Is it a complimentary word?" then it usually is. There's also the secondary use of the word meaning 'hilarious', and that can be more double-edged. Strawless  (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sort of like "inflammable." Or "I can't praise him too highly." Edison (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Will it be correct to say "Time is precious and priceless"? 119.93.229.4 (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of correct/incorrect. It's certainly grammatical.  But is it idiomatic?  Not really.  It might be a good line in a poem, but it wouldn't be heard in everyday parlance.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)