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

= May 14 =

Latin for 151st
If centennial is 100 years, and sesquicentennial is 150 years, what is the Latin term for 151 years? Thanks, EdwinHJ | Talk Specifically a 151st anniversary. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic Latin way of saying "151st year" was annus centesimus quinquagesimus primus. Doubt that there's any accepted way of packing that all together in one convenient word... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this an error? Why has this question and answer been repeated here? Problem with archiving? --KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was moved here from the Humanities desk. I thought about moving it back but decided "What the hell; it's only one day old and was deleted there." Deor (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. You know weird things happen to the formatting on the RefDesk from time time. I thought it was one of those. Cheers :) --KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez, by the time the Romans finished ordering their Bacardi, it must have been closing time! -- Coneslayer (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CLI sestertii is a bit steep for a Bacardi :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pontificate
I've recently heard two different co-workers use the word "pontificate" as if it meant "to vacillate" or "to debate (oneself) endlessly about a course of action". Is this a widespread error, or is it more likely that one picked it up from the other? -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard it used like that. Maybe they are confusing it with 'procrastinate'?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking "ponder" (because, in their usage, the "uncertainty" aspect seems more central than the "delay" aspect), but maybe it's some sort of freakish hybrid... -- Coneslayer (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to disagree. I doubt anyone would confuse a formal word like 'pontificate' with an everyday word like 'ponder' :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assume it was just more of a natural semantic drift from "make papal-style proclamations" to "speak with great authority and self-righteousness" to "make a long boring speech (as a commencement speech, presentation, etc.)". At least, the links in that chain make sense to me. I don't see the need to assume contamination from some other word (though the fact that "pontificate" isn't used very often surely could help it to acquire new meanings faster because people won't be as confident about what it means if they only hear it in a few contexts). --Miskwito (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Furthermore, once you've decided that it means something like "talk too long about something boring", you're unlikely to hear a correct usage that's so inconsistent with that definition that you realize the error.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However, debate does not necessarily involve talking, especially when it is done with 'oneself', as the OP specified. I stick with 'procrastinate'. Cogito ergo est --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll raise my flag of ignorance and say that it never occurred to me that the word still literally meant to act in the manner of a pontiff. I haven't used the word a great deal, but I've always used it in the third sense listed in Wiktionary, "To speak in a patronizing, supercilious or pompous manner, especially at length." even in the sense of speaking in that manner to oneself, as in a stereotypical soliloquy. For example, I (would have) classified Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" speech as an example of pontificating. From there, it's a short step to the usage Coneslayer brought up. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought it was virtually impossible to pontificate alone. Unless you're talking to yourself as if you were a different person.  It's about laying down the law, stating the rules, telling others what they must and must not do, making things right or wrong, that sort of thing.  It's not so much about the type of language used, but about the arrogance and high-handedness employed in deciding for others what's right and wrong for them.  If anything, it's the opposite of vacillation.  Far being unable to make up one's mind, pontification goes the extra mile and makes up others' minds for them.  Or tries to.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty easy to talk to yourself about what other people should and shouldn't do. It's preaching to the choir, but that never stopped anyone. :) Indeterminate (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is better to pontificate than to curse the river. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Great Balls of Fire
is the title of a rock n roll hit, I know, but also the title of a book by Tulsa/nyc-School poet Ron Padgett. It's very serious german publisher Rowohlt called it Große Feuerbälle, which in german can only mean great fireballs. Can Great Balls of Fire really even have this "meaning" Great Fireballs?--Radh (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what it means. What else could 'balls of fire' mean other than 'fireballs'?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to my mind it is just the opposite: what sense does Große Feuerbälle/Great Fireballs have? To my "mind" Great Balls of Fire can only mean something along the lines of my balls are on fire? But not putonable a rororo/dnb paperback back then.--Radh (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that what the song's title actually means?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, "Great balls of fire!" is rather old-fashioned exclamation of astonishment (perhaps only in American English?). That's certainly its intended meaning in "Great Balls of Fire", but maybe Padgett was using it to mean something else. Große Feuerbälle can, as far as I know, only be interpreted literally as "large fireballs", with no testicular implications since Bälle doesn't mean that in German. +Angr 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is completely flat in german. But this astonishment thing may be the way out of the hole. It makes sense and is not obscene. But what did Jerry Lee Lewis think? Do you think there was no obscenity there?--Radh (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I really do not believe their was any obscenity meant there. Maybe he meant like the scene in Slumdog Millionaire where the girl puts hot chillies in the boys pants? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may be right and guess Angr is all in all simply correct. The german book title is lame, though, "Große Feuerbälle!" is simply no real german joyful or surprised exclamation. --Radh (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Heiliger Sankt Florian!" would probably have been closer to the English meaning. Paperback publishers pay for machine translations and that's what they get.  As long as they find enough buyers they won't start paying for localizations anytime soon. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I always thought the phrase, used as an interjection of surprise, referred to fireballs such as Ball lightning, which I had confused with St. Elmo's fire. "Being struck by lightening" is a poetic metaphor for love at first sight.  BrainyBabe (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: ball lightning ? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See the line immediately above yours. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Source in Traditional Chinese
I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I am looking for somebody who can understand Chinese to translate a sentence for the Republic of China article. The sentence is "民國十六年，國民政府定為首都" from this article. I've tried Google Translate but the result didn't make much sense to me, so I'd appreciate if somebody could help. Thank you, Laurent (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "In the 16th Year of the Republic [1927], the National Government established it as the capital".
 * For "Year of the Republic", see Republic of China calendar. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) 'In the 16th Year of the People's Country Republic (Taiwan), the Guomindang Government set up a capital'. Does that make sense? Thanks PalaceGuard, I wasn't thinking. Duly changed. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (In the 16th Year, Taiwan wasn't yet part of the Republic. It was still part of the Japanese Empire.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True. The Guomindang were still on the mainland at that time. Sorry. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it makes sense now, many thanks for your help! Laurent (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

English "legalese" meaning of assign

 * ''Party A agrees to indemnify and hold harmless party B and assigns against any breach of any of the foregoing representations.

''
 * Is this phrase missing something or what does "assign against" mean here. I know the usage "to assign a claim against a party".  If that was the intended use then this sentence seems to be missing a few bits.  Or did they mean
 * Party A agrees to indemnify and hold harmless party B and assigns against (them) any (claims derived from) breach of any of the foregoing representations. - 71.236.24.129 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a lawyer but don't hear much of a distinction between assigning "claims dreived from breach" against someone and assigning the "breach" against someone. As for the 'assigns' verb, it sounds to me like it's an ellipsis gone wrong.  It's trying to say: "Party A agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and assign against party B any breach of the foregoing representations..."  It's terrible English but what do you expect from a contract lawyer.  They ain't there to make things clear. 79.122.112.53 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Assigns" here is a noun, meaning "assignees." Does that help?  John M Baker (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If assign were a noun than I could make even less sense of the sentence. A noun to what verb and object?  I can get 79's rewording. The meaning is still odd since if B breaks the contract and A has claims to damages they can then not go after B for those claims (hold harmless etc.), but why and how would they assign the claim i.e. give the rights derived from it to the same party that they have a claim against i.e. that would have to satisfy those rights?  If A is in breach then why do they need to assign anything? I realize that's more a question for the humanities desk, but the sentence was so strange that I wasn't sure I got the grammatical sense right in the first place. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The verb is "hold (harmless)". Ianal, but I think it's saying something like "Not only is party B safe from any consequences of a breach, but so is any party to which party B has assigned its rights/responsibilities."  The object of hold harmless is "party B and assigns". --  JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack. Question moved to "Humanities" for verification.71.236.24.129 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's essentially as described by JackofOz. A has made certain representations to B. A is agreeing that if any of those representations are breached, then A will (a) indemnify B against B's resulting losses and (b) hold B harmless (i.e., will not sue B for A's losses). The benefit of this agreement to indemnify and hold harmless will run not just to B, but also to B's assignees. B probably can't assign just this one provision, but presumably has some kind of right to assign the contract as a whole; there may be another provision in the contract that describes the extent to which assignments can be made. John M Baker (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated on the Humanities desk, the Reference desk does not give legal advice, including interpretations of phrases in contracts. Tempshill (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is giving legal advice. We are simply explaining the meaning of the phrase.  He may be using that information in an actual legal case, but we have no reason to assume that, and should be assuming good faith anyway.  "No legal advice" doesn't mean "no questions about law." -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Major face saving at the office doesn't qualify as "an actual legal case" anywhere. (Although it does wonders for job security and prevents any possible legal unpleasantness involved in being laid off:-) The contract the phrase was taken from is at least 7 stages of "would you look at that" and "first prize to whoever can explain that one to me" removed from me (5 of which aren't even at our company).  I assume the original parties to the contract are going to have their lawyers puzzle over that phrase.  Everyone else comes under "might need to know but won't get told".  So my boss can now gloat to the other guy during their next golf game and hopefully net a contract for us in the process. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Rubbing alcohol"
According to Wikipedia rubbing alcohol is the American-english name for Isopropyl alcohol. But what is the nearest equivalent common name in British-english? Is it methylated spirits, which in the UK has a purple dye added to signify its toxicity? And why is it called "rubbing" alcohol - what was the thing it was suppossed to rub? 78.144.253.38 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Skin. It's often used for massages (see www.associatedcontent.com/article/279540/10_uses_for_rubbing_alcohol.html and www.ehow.com/how_4470343_help-sore-muscles-alcohol-massage.html, both of which are blocked from linking due to spamminess). +Angr 11:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This link, however, is not blocked :) -- Ferkelparade &pi; 11:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the redirects or links seem to have been altered, I can see that the British common name would be surgical spirit. 84.13.60.119 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"A" versus "an" when preceding a parenthetical phrase
Let me just give you an example. "A/an (argon or plasma) welding rig". Please ignoe the issue of whether a parenthetical phrase is needed in this sentence at all. I'm here about the rule and just made up the sentence. So, the qustion is, when the article (a/an) directly precedes a vowel sound in a parenthetical phrase, do you use an, or do you ignore the parenthetical phrase and only use an if the first word after the parenthetical phrase starts with a vowel sound? Thanks in advance.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would use "an" because when reading it out loud you can't here the parenthesis anyway so it comes out "An argon or plasma...", perhaps with a parenthetical intonation. But no doubt someone else will come along and tell you to re-cast the sentence to avoid the issue entirely. +Angr 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Angr - particularly the part about the expectation that someone will come along and tell you to re-cast the sentence. :-) The a/an distinction is all about how the words sound when spoken aloud, so that's all you need to keep in mind when constructing your sentence. Now, if your parenthetical (argon or plasma) was so trivial that you wouldn't say it aloud at all, it would probably be tucked away in a footnote and cause you no trouble.  Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound ungrateful (I know, I know—that type of qualifier usually proceeds the exact thing you are saying you're not trying to be), but I thought I took care of the recasting issue by specifically predicting it and taking the time to address it in the OP! Again, forget the actual example used. That was for illustration purposes only. Occasionally, there are going to be necessary parenthetical phrases started with a vowel sound, preceded by an article, and proceeded by a word starting with a consonant. The question is what is the actual rule when this does come up where the parenthetical phrase is needed. I already suspected that the rule would follow the pronunciation. I was looking for a more formal direction and exactitude: "yes, see ____ style manual, which states that..."--70.19.69.27 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, but I did answer your question without telling you to recast the sentence! The Chicago Manual of Style says to use "an" whenever the next word begins with a vowel sound when read aloud, but it doesn't explicitly address the issue of parentheticals. (I can think of only one possible exception: something like "I think that's a, um, good idea", where "um" is not just parenthetical, it's really outside the speaker's train of thought.) +Angr 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaetano
Can someone write this name in IPA? Thanks. Kurtelacić (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * . Not terribly different from the orthography, actually. +Angr 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew it, but had to show it to my professor. Thanks! :) Kurtelacić (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation: Names/Places ending on "-sham"
Hi. As a non-native speaker, I keep wondering how English family names or places ending on "-sham" like e.g. Havisham are pronounced: is it "Havi-sham" [] or "Havis-ham" []? (which would be consistent with other "hams" like Birmingham etc.) Thanks in advance... -- megA (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [] is the normal pronunciation. There are probably exceptions, but I can't think of any at present. Algebraist 19:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Interesting. Thank you very much! -- megA (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are probably exceptions, but most or all of them will have been levelled so only locals (and likely, only older locals) will use the exceptional pronunciation. Many years ago I was told by a native of Chesham that the locals pronounced it [], and our article confirms this, but I've never attempted to verify it myself. --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Algebraist is right that is the normal pronunciation nowadays, but etymologically, in almost every case that's a spelling pronunciation, as these place names are generally composed of some noun ending in s (often the genitive ending) followed by ham < Old English hām "home". So if Chesham locals use (or used to use), they're following the etymologically expected pronunciation, while  is a spelling pronunciation. +Angr 06:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my line of reasoning, too. Thanks for elaborating, Angr. -- megA (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also a Bosham in West Sussex pronounced Bozzam.86.151.236.190 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! That knowledge is useful to Wodehouse fans. —Tamfang (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See *sham - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some exceptions, as pointed out above, but the [] is generally the normal one - Amersham, Lewisham...and surnames like Gresham, mostly tend to use this pronunciation. (Coincidentally, I may have just finished getting the Caversham, New Zealand article to FAC status. Fingers crossed...) Grutness...wha?  06:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Side question about stereotypical English surnames
There was a period between about the mid '60s and mid '80s when it was very common for an English character in an American movie or TV show to have a surname ending in -ham. There are indeed many English people with such names, but there are probably more Americans with the same names, and in either case they represent a tiny fraction of the population. What led to this becoming the stereotype it became? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Distribution of the name in the US - dynastree.com. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Large, big, or...?
What is the right word?: ... provides a large/big flexibility...

Thank you for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would use "high" flexibility, but I am not a native. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say "provides great flexibility." Deor (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Deor. That is probably the most common form of phrasing. Some alternative phrases that work are "provides considerable flexibility"; "provides a good deal of flexibility" (colloquial); "provides superior flexibility" (slightly different meaning). I would add that both "large" and "big" do not work at all. They're not alternative but inferior phrasing, which you might think if not told; rather, they come off as broken English. I think it's because they are usually attached to concrete noun objects ("a large cat"; "a big dog"), rather than a state or condition such as "flexibility". I am no grammarian though.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Great flexibility" also allows for the next iteration of the product to offer "even greater flexibility" than the current one, or perhaps "more flexibility" -- but definitely not "higher flexibility". OK? --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You could also say, "...a large degree of flexibility" or "...a large amount of flexibility." I can't readily think of a construction where big would be used. Matt Deres (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about wide flexibility (for a wide range of applications)? —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dream
Is the noun "dream" an abstract or concrete noun? (sorry posted this on misc desk too but should be here) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a countable noun, not a mass noun... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It can be both an abstract and a concrete noun. If you are refering to the sleeptime hallucinations, that is a concrete noun.  If you are refering to a dream as an "aspiration", then it is an abstract noun.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Concrete nouns need to involve physical objects, but not all dreams do that. Even if they did, the things in the dream might be concrete, but the dream itself is abstract.  This type of dream is no more concrete than a thought.  Perhaps a better example of a concrete dream might be a specific car or house or some other valuable tangible external object that someone longs for and can point to and touch and see.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have that backwards. I think the difference is the proximity to the thing being identified.  If the word refers directly to the thing named, it is concrete even if not a physical object.  If the word refers "abstractly" to something else, then it is an abstract noun, such that there is a degree of seperation, then it is abstract.  For example, if I say "I had a dream about a car" then if "dream" is taken as concrete you mean "Last night, I had a sleeping halucination about a car" and if "dream" is taken as an abstract noun, you mean "I had an aspiration to own a car"  Events can be concrete nouns even if they aren't objects... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then Noun needs to be re-written from scratch. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome in French
how do you welcome somebody in french? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.23.101 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bienvenue.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ça va ?" means "How are you?" Tempshill (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ça va" may be a bit informal depending on the situation. The more formal "Comment allez-vous" may be more appropriate. Also, in the opposite direction, sometimes "Bienvenue" can be a bit of a formal greeting. If you are familiar with the greetee, a simple "Salut!" may be all that is required. Also, as "Ça va" and "Comment allez-vous" beg a response, you wouldn't say it if addressing a crowd. In that case, I would probably use "Bienvenue" --Jayron32. talk . contribs 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Bonjour" may be another possibility, particularly when addressing a crowd.  May be combined with Jayron's suggestions. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)