Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 September 11

= September 11 =

Quenya
Aiya.

This wonderful site says that "Respective: Sg. -s, pl. -is, part.pl. -lis, dual -tes." This makes sense. But does this transfer over to Black Speech? This guys article on Orkish doesn't really help me there, and I was wondering anyone here knew how much of Quenya is used in Black Speech. Eruhantalë-tesil. ^_^ Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, almost nothing is known about Tolkien's "Black Speech" of Sauron, except the Ring Inscription, the words for "old man" and "fire", and one sentence in the LOTR novel which is in a debased and corrupt form of Black Speech... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tolkien's other books give more detail on all the languages. Black Speech though, as you said, has little known about it. It is copied from Quenya, with some more... hedonistic changes made, but it follows the same grammar system (as far as I know, hence the question) almost exactly. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what "hedonistic" is supposed to mean in this context... Within the Tolkienverse, Sauron presumably based the Black Speech partially on Quenya and/or Valarin -- but in a deliberately twisted and distorted way, so that it would not be correct to assume that Tolkien intended any particular feature of Quenya to carry over to the Black Speech. AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Black Speech. There you go.  The Jade Knight (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin: Hierosylma est perditus. Or perdita?
In Hip Hip Hooray, we cite RS that it's perditus. The article Hep-Hep riots has it as "perdita". It's an awfully long time since I studied Latin, and I wasn't much good at it anyway, so I haven't a clue; perhaps both are correct, for different usage? Please can a Latin scholar help out. As both articles seem to be using RS, we might need a "sic" for one. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perdita. Hierosolyma is feminine, so the adjective needs to be feminine too. —Angr 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that the RS called it medieval Latin - I know enough about the subject to know that in the medieval period, usage of the language was somewhat, shall we say barbarised. Could this account for incorrect usage, or is the barbarism entirely that of a modern author/subeditor? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more likely to be modern. Medieval Latin was stylistically simpler than Classical Latin, but since the people who used it were for the most part themselves speakers of languages with fully fledged grammatical gender systems, that aspect of Latin grammar is something they were likely to get right. The error may be in the book cited as the source, or it may be with the Wikipedian who copied the information from the book. Either way, the etymology is extremely likely to be false, as with almost all cases of words alleged to derive from pre-20th century acronyms (e.g. For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, Port Out Starboard Home, etc.). —Angr 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be me, not him. Blast :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some first-declension (i.e ending in -a) nouns that are masculine, classical words like poeta and nauta, and medieval ones like papa and patriarcha, which are all borrowed from Greek I guess. Hierosolyma comes from Greek too, but since it's not an occupation usually held by men, it is just a regular feminine noun like Roma. A quick glance through William of Tyre, who lived in Jerusalem during the crusades, suggests it was always feminine for him. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about the poeta/nauta things too, but not only is Hierosolyma not an occupation, it is a city, and cities tend to be feminine even when they end in -us and belong to the second declension (I can't think of an example of the top of my head but I know they exist), so the ones ending in -a and belonging to the first declension are virtually guaranteed to be feminine. —Angr 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Having now seen the source, I don't think it looks reliable. This sort of etymology is very popular and is almost certain to be bullshit. —Angr 13:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I've got William open, his own see, Tyrus, is always feminine. I don't like that source either, I really don't see the crusaders running around shouting "hep!" They had plenty of slogans but I don't remember ever seeing that one. It's not very encouraging, so it doesn't even make sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are loads of others (better). Equally there are ones that disagree (while at the same time confirming the notability, if not the accuracy of the assertion!). It'd be good to get some dissent into the article, per its talk page. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The medieval part is probably the word order -- in Classical Latin, the word order "Hierosolyma perdita est" would have been more usual (cf. "Carthago delenda est"). AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't "delenda est" a gerundive of obligation, ie it must be destroyed, rather than a statement of fact, it is destroyed? --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it doesn't matter because you could also say "Cartago deleta est" and it's the same word order. Est can go at the end of the clause like any other verb, despite being a copula. I've seen est (or other forms of sum, esse) often used both inbetween subject and complement (SVC), and after both subject and complement (SCV), as an auxiliary or copula..--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to my dictionaries, it should be Hierosolyma perdita sunt. —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In Greek, "Jerusalem" can be either feminine singular or neuter plural; not sure about Latin. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have always been skeptical of this etymology. Do you think that semiliterate drunken mobs of 19th-century antisemites were fluent in Latin? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Peculiar, isn't it? Mind you, even inebriated, ill-educated mobs can probably handle Latin abbreviated to just three letters in a handy, pre-packaged and pronuncible acronym. After all, they presumably would have easily handled the three letter Hebrew acronym Amen, without knowing its origins. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen is a form derived from a triliteral abstract consonantal root (not an acronym...). AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not according to the Talmud. See our article. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the writers of the Talmud are as likely to succumb to folk etymologies as anyone else. —Angr 10:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do the lager louts in a largely illiterate society understand the concept of acronyms? —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This thread is giving me deja vu. --Dweller (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Translations
Hello. Although I speak about 20-25 languages, I need the surname 'Smith' translated into Ukrainian, which I don't speak. Feel free to leave comments on my talk page- not here as I won't be checking here, I'll only ask again. And again. Chris Wattson (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Smith would be коваль, but surnames aren't usually translated. Сміт is the transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you ask here, you get an answer here. Them's the rules.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice way to approach someone who knows something you don't, with a request to find that thing out. And following it up with a threat to be a juvenile nuisance?  Well, usually, to paraphrase Hobson, one must go to a bowling alley to meet a [person] of your stature. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it's rude to make fun, but after Chris's language-dropping intro here, making him one of the greatest polyglots of all time, I can't resist pointing out that he's volunteered to supply the first 25 digits of pi, which he "happens to know", at pi, "if it helps the article". (The article lists the first 50 and links to 10,000.)
 * Delete that if I've gone overboard. kwami (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. In any case, he won't see any of the above because he's made it quite clear he won't be checking.  Not even once, let alone again.  And again.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be honoured, you and I, Jack, that we have been graced by one of our Prime Ministers, and one of the first Labor heads of state in the world. Steewi (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Head of government, shurely? Algebraist 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who by rights should never have been eligible because he wasn't a British subject, having been born of German parentage in Valparaiso, Chile, of all places. Yes, Algebraist, he was a head of government.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on, give him his due; he knows the first 32 digits of pi, not just the first 25. Personally, I'm more curious about the five languages he's not sure whether he knows or not. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe some pairs among them are related closely enough that it's doubtful whether to count them as distinct languages; or maybe he can't count that high. —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

avoiding a split infinitive
"I set up a bell to automatically ring whenever someone came in the door" is not grammatically correct because of the split infinitive ("to ... ring"). One way to fix it would be to say: "I set up a bell to ring automatically whenever someone came in the door", but this still does not seem correct. Should there be a comma after "automatically" or should it be written entirely differently altogether? 137.148.204.138 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article you linked? It's hardly a given that a split infinitive is automatically incorrect.  Such prescriptivism is something up with which I shall not put.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the sentence is very much grammatically correct. It's just bad style if you happen to be talking, for instance, to HM Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Most non-native English speakers would not find anything wrong with it, I dare to presume. J I P  | Talk 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not hesitate to boldly say that the Queen probably splits them herself. --Kjoonlee 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to avoid the split infinitive for whatever reason though, I'd say your second proposed sentence is fine, although I'd probably use "anyone" instead of "someone" in both cases. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd make it "whenever anyone comes through the door". But then, I wouldn't have been troubled in the first place by this Greatest furphy of all time (what? still no article??) .  More words have been written about the non-existent issue of the split infinitive than about things that really matter.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My exemplar of English-language style, The Economist, splits not never no infinitive, no-how, no-way. I propose we rise up and cast off the shackles of our oppressors - infinitives must always be split! Death to those who would force William Shatner to unctuate "boldly to go"! Franamax (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is of course their choice, and I would defend to the death their right to make such a choice. But if such a choice were made on the basis that to do otherwise would be wrong, that would have been a very bad choice, imho.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "To go" is not the infinitive form of the verb. "Go" is the infinitive, "to" is a preposition used in front of it. One may as well talk about "The green cat" as being a split substantive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what Infinitive says. "To" is a particle (not a preposition, btw), and "go" is the bare form of the infinitive, but the 2-word expression is correctly called the infinitive.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you tell Otto Jespersen that or shall I? DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought that no one analytical linguist gets to decide these matters unilaterally. --   JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * T. R. Lounsbury & Ernest Gowers call it a preposition too, and even if you want to call it a particle, it started out as a preposition, and was often seperated from the verb from the start. Anyway, it's a silly rule. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That, at least, is one thing we can agree 100% on. --  JackofOz (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You, me, and Bernard Shaw! DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You could also consider amending the sentence to read "through the door", or, better, "through the doorway", since generally only people with large mallets come through doors. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Russian question
My two Russian co-workers keep using a word that sounds like "karuchi". What the heck does it mean? J I P | Talk 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * короче. It means "basically/ in short/ briefly", and just like those English words it can be and is used just to fill in space in a sentence. You know, like, basically. Koolbreez (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. This raises an interesting additional question - "basically / in short / briefly" is one of the very few words/idioms that I fully understand the concept of, but have not found a way to express it in my native Finnish. It is embarassing to find out you know some concept better in a foreign language than in your native language. J I P  | Talk 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * JIP, I'm sure there are Finnish expressions for which other languages lack clear equivalents. That's part of what makes other languages interesting: they can be like another form of thinking.  (My favorite example is the lack of an exact word for "yes," "no," and "to know" in Scottish Gaelic.  Good for overturning preconceptions.)  Your comment made me look for Finnish idioms, and I have to say I really like en minä voi siksi muuttua.  The site gave an English translation as "I can't change into that," but explained the meaning as "a desired object simply isn't available, no matter how much someone keeps asking for it."  --- OtherDave (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They could also be using the word хорошо (pronounced "khor-o-sho), which means "good". Saukkomies 09:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Though its last syllable seems unlikely to be mistaken for chi. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Areas of study and capitalization
Should areas of study be capitalized? Such as "John Doe went to Whatsamatta U. where he majored in Underwater Basket Weaving". Dismas |(talk) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally not, though I can imagine some style guides might disagree. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In English, I've only seen that for languages ("He majored in Pottsylvanian literature") and words derived from proper names ("...and minored in Thomistic theology"). Otherwise, maybe in constructions like "dean of the School of Engineering at Whatsammatta U."  -- OtherDave (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although if you're referring to a specific class, it would be capitalized: Underwater Basket Weaving 101.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since underwater basket weaving is likely to be taught by (the Department of) Underwater Basket Weaving, I can readily imagine that the university's documents might capitalize it. —Contrarianly, Tamfang (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentence structure; particples, gerunds... all that sort of stuff
When I read the following sentence: "since the inhibitors under investigation form covalent bonds...", I have to slow down when I reach the word 'form' in order to understand its function in the sentence. Alternatively, if I read the sentence: "since the inhibitors under investigation are known to form covalent bonds...", I don't have to slow down or stop at all; the sentence flows much more nicely in my opinion. I lack the required understanding of grammar to diagnose the problem myself, but "instinctively", I suggest that the first sentence has a failing. Is it grammatically incorrect? --Seans Potato Business 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing wrong with it from a grammatical perspective. Your preferred version is fine too, although it introduces the concept of persuasion - the facts are not simply asserted, they're supported by reference to some unnamed authority "knowing" them to be true - which makes the overall meaning subtly different.  From a Plain English point of view, I'd prefer the former one.  The latter one introduces words that aren't essential to the meaning; "are known to form" is in passive voice, which Plain Anglicists like to use as the exception rather than the rule.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine Sean is stumbling over 'form' because it could be a noun in the first sentence, whereas in the second it is made very clear it is a verb. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but wouldn't that transform 'investigation' into an adjective. Is there such an adjective-noun pair as "investigation form"?  I suppose it's possible in that context.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Garden path sentence. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

latinise this please?
I'm looking for an authentic-sounding taxonomic name for a fantasy plant popularly called the architectural poppy - can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Papaver ædificium. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely wonderful, so quick! - thanks heapsAdambrowne666 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ædificium means 'a building'; perhaps ædificialis? —Tamfang (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The noun papaver (genitive singular: papaveris) is neuter, so aedificialis would become aedificiale (genitive singular: aedificialis) in agreement.
 * (In Latin, the citation form for nouns is the nominative singular, and that for adjectives is the nominative singular masculine.)
 * Similarly, architecturalis would become architecturale (genitive singular: architecturalis).
 * (It seems to me that aedificialis would mean of or pertaining to buildings.)
 * I have found neither aedificialis nor architecturalis in any dictionary, but I have found architecturalis on the following pages.
 * Algaebase :: Species Detail
 * Algaebase :: Genus Detail
 * Therefore, if aedificialis is used, then the full translation is papaver aedificiale, and if architecturalis is used, then the full translation is papaver architecturale.
 * (If macrons are used, then the correct spellings are: papāver, papāveris, aedificiāle, aedificiālis, architectūrāle, and architectūrālis.)
 * In summary, my answer is papaver architecturale (with macrons, papāver architectūrāle).
 * (For additional information on the grammar, please see Latin declension.)
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Even better - I'm running out of hyperboles! Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC) - though, are macrons ever used in taxonomic names? - i'd like to use them, but only if there's some precedent.

"nannettikafruit" / "nannetticafruit" (nanettikafruit)
I'm looking for confirmation that this is a real word meaning 'pitaya'- the only mention on here is a redirect created exactly one year ago, and I can't find much else anywhere else on the web (it's listed as an alternative spelling on wiktionary because it's listed on here). Also if it is- any ideas on the etymology? 70.162.28.222 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See here and here. Nothing with a C, though. kwami (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you asking about the C spelling, or both? If the C spelling, it may have been intended as a redirect from a common misspelling, though I could come up with lots of ways to misspell this word, if given half a chance! kwami (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't find an etymology. kwami (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)