Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 14

= February 14 =

Latin word miramini
What is the meaning of the Latin word 'miramini', as in the example 'Respondit Iesus et dixit eis unum opus feci et omnes miramini'? Thanks. Lantzytalk 00:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It means [you] marvel, so et omnes miramini means you all marvel. It's John 7:21, in the Vulgate wording. Mīrāminī is the second person plural present indicative form of the verb mīror (deponent, first conjugation), "to be surprised [at]; marvel at, hold in awe".
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 01:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Noetica. I thought perhaps it meant something like "to look", considering its resemblance to the Spanish mirar. Lantzytalk 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See http://multilingualbible.com/john/7-21.htm, where the Vulgate version is listed third in the first column. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a famous inscription on the Bayeux Tapestry, ISTI MIRANT STELLA "These guys are wondering at the star" (where the "star" in question is Halley's Comet). AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see the tapestry at Halley's Comet, subsection "20 March 1066 (1P/1066 G1, 1066)". -- Wavelength (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's (sort of) a different word though - if it was the same verb as "miramini", it would say "isti mirantur". But on the other hand miro and miror are pretty much interchangeable. (And maybe the sewers of the tapestry just ran out of room because of that tower in the way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The -ur ending is regularly abbreviated to a sign similar to our single quotation mark in end position. It might be that such a sign is present on the tapestry but not shown on the photograph due to low resolution. Final 'm' in stellam may be represented by a Nasalstrich above the A. Iblardi (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are those Tironian notes? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just common abbreviations in medieval manuscripts. Iblardi (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The ur is behind the tower, silly! —Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why gravitate to antisocial language?
I have noticed that (some) people (sometimes) gravitate to insulting or profane language or ideas of such, when they are given opportunities:
 * to learn something in a foreign language, or
 * to demonstrate their knowledge of a foreign language, or
 * to guess what someone has just said in a foreign language, or
 * to be creative in their use of a language.

Is it because of:
 * their relationship with language, or
 * their relationship with insults and profanity, or
 * their relationship with themselves, or
 * their relationship with (some) other people?
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One reason might be that learning to say something like the following requites quite a bit of study: "I strongly protest your obstinate insistence on such unqualified objections to my most logical deliberations."  Learning to say "You're an ass." can be done in a jiffy. Remember that language is a tool. If you don't have that many you may have to make do with a hammer. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment did not answer my question in regard to any of the aforementioned opportunities per se. Your examples involve choosing aggression instead of assertiveness when there has been an intense disagreement.  Is that kind of opportunity really more prominent in your life than opportunities to say things like Please, Thank you, I am sorry, Excuse me, and Congratulations?  See Jennifer's language page.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a lot depends on who is learning the language at to what end. I travel internationally quite a bit and so have had the need to pick up bits and pieces of various other languages. "Hello," "goodbye," "please," and "thank you" are the first four things I attempt to learn in any language, and I can say them in probably six or seven different ones. But I can only curse effectively in two. - EronTalk 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reason might be simply because it's fun. For example, I don't speak Klingon, Japanese or much German, but I know how to swear in all of them (and use this knowledge regularly). It adds variety to speech. -- Aseld  talk  06:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @76.97: this is a non-sequitur. The contrast between elaborate constructions with learned words and simple direct statements is in an entirely different dimension from the contrast between profanity and polite speech. "Having to make do with a hammer", in this context, would mean using simple constructions and not always being able to use the most appropriate word: it does not necessarily imply profanity.
 * I think Aseld is more on target, though perhaps 'expressive' might be more general than 'fun'. In fact Wavelength's use of 'gravitate' in the question is prejudicial, as it implies that they cannot be making a deliberate choice to acquire that part of the language in question (or that if they are, this is reprehensible).
 * It's not directly on this question, but there are a lot of relevant observations in Peter Trudgill and Lars Andersson's book Bad Language.--ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, not directly related to the context, but some people think in judgmental ways, and when anyone disagrees with them, it's immediately "You're an idiot/jerk/moron/asshole", or at the very least "You're wrong", rather than "I have a different opinion" or "I disagree with you". It's usually a result of social or family conditioning.  They can be trained out of it, but often they don't recognise there's a problem, and often they wouldn't want to change even if someone did point out a better way of interacting.  The pointers-out are likely to be called names themselves and sent packing, unless they're skilled in such matters.  --  JackofOz (talk)

how about rewriting this in english
this is from the wikipedia bio of sen. susan collins of maine:

"Collins voted with the majority in favor of the Iraq War Resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq, on October 10, 2002.[2]

"On September 19, 2007, she voted NAY (whereas her Maine republican colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, voted YEA) on the Cloture Motion [Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Specter S.Amdt. 2022 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)], said amendment intended to restore habeas corpus (i.e., "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus") for those detained by the United States.[3]

"Said "Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" is cited by We the People of the United States in the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, i.e., "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

i find the second and third paragraphs above incomprehensible. please have someone rewrite them so i (and other readers) can understand how sen. collins voted on habeas corpus. wikipedia is wonderful. please bring this up to your usual excellent standards.

(mr) sandy goodman rockville md —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.201.140 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is about answering questions. The way you're supposed to ask for wording in an article to be improved is to edit the article itself and insert an appropriate template in the wikitext.  That way, people who are interested in the subject and might know what it's supposed to say, or who can figure it out and like to improve the English usage in articles, will see it.  I agree that it's not very comprehensible, so I have done this for you, inserting:
 * --Anonymous, 06:47 UTC, February 14, 2009.
 * It's way too detailed, so I've gotten rid of most of it. See what you think. Clarityfiend (talk)
 * Actually, now that I see what it's really about, it seems to be too minor a vote to even be in the article. (P.S. I've also moved it down to be in better chronological position.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I see what it's really about, it seems to be too minor a vote to even be in the article. (P.S. I've also moved it down to be in better chronological position.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

my changes in bold with the previous striken "Collins voted with the majority in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq, on October 10, 2002.[2]

"On September 19, 2007, she voted NAY nay (whereas her Maine republican colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, voted YEA yea) on the Cloture Motion [Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Specter S.Amdt. 2022 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)], said which amendment intended to restore habeas corpus (i.e., "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus") for those detained by the United States.[3]

" Said This "Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" is cited by We the People of the United States in the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, i.e., "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Though I might be too erudite for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of academic title
Disclosure: the immediate application of this information will be a homework assignment.

I'm writing an essay which contains the segment "In his essay \emph{Like feeling the hand of God}, Professor of Sociology John Carrol hypothesises [...]". My question is, is my capitalization of "Professor of Sociology" correct - i.e. should it be treated, in this context, as a proper or improper noun?

Thanks a lot, Aseld   talk  06:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me. It is correct to write "Professor John Carrol", and the "of Sociology" part shouldn't change that. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, great, thank you. -- Aseld  talk  07:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Grannies and eggs and all that, but do you actually mean Professor John Carroll? (http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/like-feeling-the-hand-of-god/2008/10/31/1224956335302.html) -- SGBailey (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion Professor of Sociology is too "heavy" a noun phrase to be used as a prefix; also, two consecutive capitalized words which are not part of the same name can be visually confusing (what is Sociology John Carrol, and where is it taught?). Capitalizing Sociology implies that it's the name of a department in a specific institution, and feels wrong to me if that institution is not mentioned.  None of these quibbles is likely to cost you points, but all in all I'd be more likely to write: "John Carroll, a professor of sociology, hypothesizes in his essay 'Like feeling'"; or else "The essay 'Like feeling', by sociologist Professor John Carroll, offers the hypothesis". —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If any explicit mention of the essay is shifted to a footnote, the sentence becomes easier to construct. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Per cent and (UK?) media
Why do TV and radio (in the UK at least) always say things like "one quarter of one per cent" rather than what I would consider to be the normal "one quarter of a per cent" or perhaps "one quarter per cent". We both would say "two per cent". Is this UK only or other countries too? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Normal it may be, but incorrect I would consider it. "one quarter of a per cent" implies that there is such a thing as a "per cent". There's not. It's Latin, meaning "in each hundred". The item before the "per cent" needs to be a number - ergo "one quarter of one per cent" is correct, as is "one quarter per cent". -- Aseld  talk  13:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect you may consider it, but you have given no authority for that view, and OED is agin you. It gives examples of this use (per cent, n, B.2: "One per cent; one part in every hundred") starting with Sir Walter Scott in 1824. And beware of the etymological fallacy: the Latin phrase 'per cent' is a Latin phrase; the English phrase 'per cent' is not. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The OED also notes that per centum is not attested in classical Latin, and appears to be a later latinization of the Italian per cento. Algebraist 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Colin (even the Daily Telegraph is quoted as having used the "of a per cent" construction"), but I must admit that I don't like it so much. In answer to the original question, I might also suggest that using "one" is clearer than a snatched "a" in rapid speech, as is common in news broadcasts and so forth. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We might also compare this with the antiquated "three millions" etc. They seemed to have logic on their side, but usage wins, as it does with "three hundred".  Technically, there's no such thing as a "thousand" or a "hundred", unless you're referring to the number itself, as opposed to simply using those words to count things.  But we're happy to say "a hundred people drowned" and don't insist on "one hundred people drowned".  By extension, we can say "a quarter of a per cent", and nobody loses any sleep. --  JackofOz (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As for other countries, "one-quarter of one percent" (that's how I'd spell it) is familiar to me here in Canada. My guess is that it's just considered to be easier to understand in speech than "one-quarter percent". --Anonymous, 00:55 UTC, February 15, 2009.


 * I think there's also a concern that 'one quarter per cent' might be misunderstood as 'one quarter' (i.e. 25%) --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer to 0.25% ('nought point two five per cent') and I am from the UK. --KageTora (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "One quarter of a per cent" makes me wince and I correct it when I can. I don't agree with the analogy between "a hundred" and "one hundred", which for many purposes are interchangeable. "Per cent" isn't a number, it's a ratio, and "one per cent" is surely good English in a way that "a per cent" isn't. For instance, I'm sure Fowler doesn't accept it. Xn4  ( talk ) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a look through my copy but I can't see it mentioned anywhere. Youre right, technically, Xn4. We can't say "a out of a hundred people are geniuses"; it can only be "one out of a hundred ...", hence "one per cent of people ...".  But if you don't stop to analyse it that way - and far fewer than one quarter of one per cent of people would ever interrupt their train of thought to do that - then "a per cent" can be thought of as analogous to "a fraction", "a proportion", etc.  From there, it's but a small step to "one quarter of a per cent" or "a quarter of a percent".  The terminology is so widespread that I fear you're facing an uphill battle to ever eradicate it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fowler (3rd edition) doesn't mention 'half of a percent' either approvingly or disapprovingly (he does talk about 'half of one percent'). But I'll see your Fowler and raise you an OED. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Logically "one quarter per cent" ought to mean "¼ per 100", thus 1/400, no problem. (But % does tend to confuse people, as well as encouraging unwarranted illusory precision and excess syllables, so I avoid using % whenever possible.)  —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)