Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 January 24

= January 24 =

What does the Danish word 'læsebillede' mean?
Can anyone give me a good English translation equivalent for the word læsebillede as it appears in the following sentence about bad dictionary layout:

Vores egen erfaring er, at der findes ordbøger af høj kvalitet, som har et så uroligt læsebillede og en så lille skrift, at brugen er vanskeliggjort.

The sentence comes from page 31 of this paper: http://netordbogen.asb.dk/Lit/Hermes/H04_02.pdf. I realize that the word is a compound of the words for "read" and "image" but it looks to me like the two terms together take on a more specialized meaning. Thanks for any help. --Diacritic (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a really good English equivalent; the best I can find is "legibility" (see Typography), as it refers to the visual aspect of the reading experience (the comfort or discomfort offered by various typographical decisions such as the typefaces used, appropriate letterspacing, and the page layout with, hopefully, judicious use of white space). --Lambiam 09:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Diacritic (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What's "Anti-Climax" in German?
Title says it all really. What is Anti-climax in German? I've run it through Google's language tools and I'm not convinced of the results, "Anti-Klimax". - X201 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Antiklimax" is indeed used in German, although the word (like most words of Latin or Greek origin) is not as common in everyday language as "anticlimax" in English - it's used frequently in literary contexts (when talking about novels or movies, or by students of literature when talking about everyday stuff), but I doubt the average guy on the street would use the word very often. In everyday language, I don't think there's a German word that has quite the same meaning - you'd probably say something like "Enttäuschung" or "enttäuschendes Ende" to describe the general idea -- Ferkelparade &pi; 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. "Enttäuschung" was the sort of feeling I was after. - X201 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Urdu POETRY translation
i have some 9 couplets of urdu poetry n i want a SMOOTH n excellent translation into english.. CAN ANY1 HELP ME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a professional Urdu-English translator whom you would pay. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WHERE CAN I FIND SUCH A TRANSLATOR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, poetry is the most difficult translation job. Not every professional translator is likely to be good at poetry. To translate poetry well, one needs to be a poet.  If you are serious about this, I would try to find other Urdu poets whose work has been translated into English, and then contact their translators.  71.192.23.229 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a list of Urdu language poets. --Lambiam 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ADVICE please
I like a girl BUT I CANT tell her She knows me a little n only passes smiles when we meet or when she sees me When I try to be close by askingf for coffee or study she feels uncomfortable

Well she doesn’t  like me or dislike me I guess

What shall I do to approach her or make her feel how much I like her deeply How can I attract her?plz help

does rosette stone have  a  language translater that you can recevie  & speak diffener language  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.59.114 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try first to get to know her better? To go from friendly smiles to the expression of deeply felt emotions might go a little too fast for her. Also, the Rosetta Stone was not a translation machine. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But Rosetta Stone might be. -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just came across an ad for that software that's reminiscent of the original query. The text goes "He was a hardworking farm boy. She was an Italian supermodel. He knew he would have just one chance to impress her. &mdash; Rosetta StoneTM. The fastest way to learn ___Italian___." Of course this is advertising hype! --Anonymous, 19:54 UTC, January 25, 2008.

retroactive legitimacy
Can anyone explain retroactive legitimacy for me? This is in the context of international law, especially the right to self determination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.85 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In what context does "retroactive legitimatcy" appear in the right to self-determination? "Retroactive legitimatcy" is a general term that can mean different things in different contexts. In particular, we might want to know what is being considered legitimate/illegitimate. A couple of sentences where you encountered the term might be helpful. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well firstly it was the "political will alone can provide retroactive legitimacy to the act of self-determination", also it was mentioned as "retroactive legitimacy may be granted upon the establishment of an independent state"... Hope that helps a little... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.85 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Something is retroactive if it affects the way a past event is viewed. For example, the annulment of a marriage (as distinct from divorce) is retroactive because it says the marriage never happened.  So "retroactive legitimacy" means that we now think something is acceptable, even though people at the time didn't think so.  If the people in a certain class or region start demanding more rights and they get violent over it, their government and anyone happy with the existing situation is likely to see them as dangerous criminals.  But say they eventually win out .  People support them and their government backs down from its original position. They get the rights they were asking for, and are pardoned for any crimes they may have committed during protests, or else they form an independent country and those actions are no longer seen as crimes.  Then they are now viewed as heroic freedom fighters -- that's retroactive legitimacy.  Through political will, in the first case, or through independence, in the second -- but they're two variations of the same theme.  For real-life examples consider people like Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela.  --Anonymous, edited 23:13 UTC, January 24, 2008.


 * Here's my understanding of it. As you probably already know, the right to self-determination at international law is not nearly as straight forward as some would make it out to be. It doesn't just mean "everyone can do whatever they want to do". For one thing, it is only available to "a people". The question of what is "a people" is often controversial, and sometimes devolves into circular and semantic debates. For example, are residents of Taiwan a "people"? Some would argue yes, because they have their own distinct identity; however, they are largely ethnically homogenous with other Han Chinese. Sometimes, even ethnic identity is not usually sufficient to make out a "people" - members of a multi-ethnic nation can collectively be regarded as a "people". A further complication comes from the conflict between self-determination and territorial integrity, which is a basic principle of the sovereignty of states. Thus, for example, while self-determination usually would allow, say, Papua New Guinea to decide whether it wished to remain a colony or become an independent state, it would not be available for a movement to split up an existing sovereign state.
 * So "legitimacy" here can refer to the legitimacy of raising a claim of the right to self-determination. For example, if a claim to the right to self-determination seems illlegtimate before the fact, perhaps because it infringes the territorial integrity of a state, then if the secession becomes accepted at international law (e.g. when the UK accepted Irish independence), then the claim will become "retroactively" seen as legitimate. As another example, if a "people" are not sufficiently defined before the act of self-determination, the self-determining act may itself sufficiently define the "people" so as to make the claim legitimate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In short, history is written by the victors. - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)