Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 5

= April 5 =

What does this sentence mean?
Can somebody check this sentence from a website owned by the government of Kerala? There is a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion. Seen here. I can't understand what the italicised part means. Sundardas (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC) His function or functions? 121.72.192.28 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Council is to advise the Governor, except those situations where (1) the Constitution requires the Governor to exercise his functions collectively in his discretion, or (2) the Constitution requires the Governor to exercise any function specifically in his discretion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Functions or any of them' to mean the general and specific looks a flawed construction to me. Hardly a clear statement and less than logical, isn't it? Sundardas (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's legalese, and therefore may not be obvious to the casual reader, but it's logical enough. "Them" means his functions.  "Any of them" means any of his functions.  So "he is required... to exercise his functions or any of them" means that either he is required to exercise (all of) his functions" or he is required to exercise his any of his functions.  A constitutional requirement of either type causes this provision to be activated.  Oh, by the way, we aren't allowed to give legal advice here, so if you are V.S. Achuthanandan, please ignore this response. :-) --Anonymous, 03:21 UTC, April 6, 2009.
 * It's not great drafting, no. "any or all of his functions" would be just as precise and more understandable, imo. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that way we'd know that the Governor isn't supposed to make the ministers run on treadmills :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Native American Personal Naming Conventions
I'm working on a story set in the way-pre-contact Eastern Woodland (the Ohio Hopewell), and I'm having a bit of trouble with names. I've written most of the story without them, but there are a few places where I need a name - mostly just "Go find this person who lives a good long walk in that direction and tell him this."

Is the popular idea of generalized Native American names being something like "noun", "noun noun", "verb noun", or "adjective noun" actually a workable, non-insulting way of naming my characters? Are there any words that I should avoid that, as a person with very little experience with Native American culture, I wouldn't think of as bad? Or maybe a list of real names/nouns that can be used as names from a Muscogean language (as the Creek and Choctaw are two groups that mtDNA testing implies are descendants of the Hopewell)?

Thanks, 71.220.127.228 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://www.20knames.com/female_native_american_names.htm
 * and http://www.20knames.com/male_native_american_names.htm -- Wavelength (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I found two good ones there. 71.220.127.228 (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be wary. ALAMEDA: Native American Indian name meaning "grove of cottonwood" — this is a Spanish word! —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd never trust sites like that (or books, for that matter). Even behindthename.com, which is better than most, is essentially useless when it comes to Indian names. In response to the original query, it would really depend on the language of the group in question, and how you choose to translate it into English. The Siouan personal name Thašųka Witkó can be translated as "His-Horse-Is-Crazy" (very literal) or "Crazy Horse" (more idiomatic, and how he's known to history among English-speakers), for example. Different Indian groups had (and have) different naming strategies. Honestly, my best suggestion would probably just look for the English (translations of the) names of various Muskogean chiefs, warriors, or other famous personalities, if you want your Hopewellian people to be related to the Muskogean Indian groups. --Miskwito (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't know very well what names might have been used in proto-Muskogee, so you can take a bit of licence with it by picking names from this link from Muskogean languages, based on appropriate meanings. Certainly, most readers won't know the difference, but I understand the importance of getting it right from your perspective. Steewi (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be useful to remember that Native Americans may have had more than one name throughout life depending on coming of age rituals, nicknames, etc. For example, Matoaka, Amonute, Pocahontas, Rebecca, Rebecca Rolfe are all the same person. Rmhermen (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, so I forgot to come back to this and check everything out, and I'm glad I did! Thank you, Steewi, for the link!  And I did know to be careful of the names on name sites - that's why I only said two out of that whole page.  I cross-checked on Google.  Thank you again, everyone!  71.220.107.21 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of the Swadesh list
There is a 207-item Swadesh list (a list of supposed basic words in any language) at Swadesh list. Can anyone shed any light on the copyright status of this list? Swadesh died too recently for it to have fallen into the public domain. Marnanel (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on whether the list is copyright in the first place. Many lists are not. Secondly, expressions are copyright, ideas are not. If the list is not in the exact form originally published, it is not copyright. Thirdly, presumably the original publication did not just contain the list. Is the list a substantial portion of the original work? In either case, is this an educational/review and criticism fair use (/fair dealing)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My copy of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2d ed.) shows the Swadesh 100 without an appropriate notice in the Acknowledgements section, suggesting that it is not under copyright. (I'm sure I have some book with the 200, but which?) —Tamfang (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)