Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 October 23

= October 23 =

Need translation
I dunno what language this is, but I need to translate this phrase to english. "Je baise ta mère!!!!"
 * French, "I fuck your mother" or "I'm fucking your mother". r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding to what Rjanag provides, note that the literal translation of the French "Je baise" is "I kiss" and the possessive pronoun "ta" is in the familiar form (second person) of address. So if the above translation – a profanity – is correct, it's clearly idiomatic – raising the question: used locally (where?), universally, or somewhere in between? I suggest you check it carefully before proceeding. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)''
 * Though the noun un baiser still means "a kiss", the verb baiser usually means "to fuck" in France. "To kiss" is embrasser. This unsigned comment was added at 09:46, October 23, 2009 by 194.171.56.13
 * Well, that's significant! Part of speech isn't particularly noted in my Encarta English>French. For kiss it gives "1. baiser masculin"* and "2. (s)embrasser." Since both end in a form characteristic of a verb's infinitive and I was looking for a verb, it didn't occur to me that the first is also a noun form – though the *indication of gender should've been a tipoff. Checking backwards (:fr:en:) confirms, though without any mention of an association with fornication. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not idiomatic, "baiser" as a verb means to fuck. As a noun is just means "a kiss". Note that dictionaries are often not a good reflection of how a language is actually used. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a little bit more complexe. Baiser as a verb has several meanings, 1/ to kiss 2/ to fuck 3/ to deceive 4/ to not understand. Let concentrate on the first two meanings. In the old time one could say: baiser quelqu'un with the meaning "to kiss someone", for example Louise_Lab%C3%A9: "Baise m'encor, rebaise-moi et baise..." []. Nowdays Baiser quelqu'un is "to fuck someone". But it is perfectly correct to say: baiser quelque chose ("kiss something") as in baiser la main de madame XXX (kiss the hand of Madam XXX) or baiser un crucifix (kiss a crucifix). Thus if I have to translate Je baise ta mère !!! (with three exclamation points) no doubt : "I fuck your mother" is the adequate sentence. Notice. The verb baiser as "to fuck" has been attested since the XVIth century. My reference: Le Petit Robert (2004) and Le Trésor de la langue française informatisé . AldoSyrt (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Baiser" in French is more at the level of "screw" or "hump". "Fuck" is an acceptable translation in the OP's sentence (clearly meant as an insult), but "baiser" doesn't usually have the strength of an obscenity.  "Baise-moi" might even be translated as "Make love to me" - it's what you'd say before sex, rather than during it. :)  "Fuck" itself is better translated "foutre" - "Go fuck yourself!" is "Va te faire foutre!" not "Va tu t'en baise!" Tevildo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The current meaning of baiser as a verb in French ranges from familiar to trivial and upto obscenity, it depends on the context. Baise-moi !, as "Make love to me!" could be said in intimate moments (or in pornographic movies :) ), moments when one can use cruder phrases. Va tu t'en baise ! is not French, a direct translation could be: Va te baiser toi-même !, obviously Va te faire foutre ! is the right translation. — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A term for little things
You know when you come across a word and think "oh, I must remember that"... and then forget? This is one of those queries. So, I'm trying to remember a word I came across while idly flipping through the Concise Oxford Dictionary (so it's common enough to be in a single-volume English dictionary), which is a two word term, I think of one three-letter and one four-letter word (though my memory may be faulty on this, still it's a lead...), from possibly some African language, and meaning miscellaneous small items, trinkets, bric-a-brac, that kind of thing. Somebody please help me before I go mad trying to remember... --81.170.63.251 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * knick-knack?  Mae din \talk 12:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here and here are lists; is the word you are thinking of included? &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 12:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, none of those. Although my quest has led me to learn about balikbayan boxes and discover that there is a Wikipedia article on Concealing objects in a book (interesting, if not exactly relevant), I still haven't found the word I was looking for. I may have to systematically trawl the dictionary. --81.170.63.251 (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bits and bobs? Odds and ends? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's more like "rapa nui" (which of course is something completely different), it's something definitely foreign-sounding, that's what made it stand out in the first place. But not enough that I remember it. --85.210.22.211 (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * gew-gaw? Grutness...wha?  23:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A "wigwam for a goose's bridle"? --  JackofOz (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Other possibilities (from SOED) are: chow chow = adj: Miscellaneous, mixed, assorted (ORIGIN Pidgin English). orra (Scottish) = adj: Odd, unmatched; occasional, miscellaneous. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, none of those. Thanks for the suggestions. I tried searching the online OED for definitions containing "items", "objects" and "things", no luck on the first two and there are too many for the last one. I'm now wondering whether I've stumbled upon a copyright trap in the printed dictionary that isn't in the online version. I shall be hugely annoyed if I spend a long time seeking a word that they've made up. --88.109.73.147 (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps sundries? –RHolton ≡ – 17:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be wampum would it?..Hotclaws (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

drug dealer referral
Suppose that a drug user wants to buy some illegal drugs, but doesn't know any drug dealers in his town, and because of law enforcement stings, the dealers won't sell drugs to strangers without a referral or introduction from someone they do know. Is there a (slang) name for that kind of referral or introduction? (This is of course purely a linguistic question, related to something that came up in editing.) 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "[Making a] connection" - see the lyrics (first verse) of "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Possibly a dated term; I'm not aware of anything more recent. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

in1980's in Britain the language would be such as "do you have snuff/hash"? believe similar acronysism(?) for different substance on other side would be "snow". this is objective rather than subjective knowledge so i guess a drug dealer would have to tell you. i guess as 90%(?) of language is body language and how you say it that such things as dress, nationality, accent, mode of transport and general demeanour would also come into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimeylimey09 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 October 2009
 * Code word, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Can you hook a brother up?" Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Where's the party, man?" —— Shakescene (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia etiquette
i have once been admonished for stating my question too stongly- so once bitten twice ... Can the linguists out there tell me in simple english the meaning of the words atheist and agnostic. i realise that this is a minefield to enter into other people's beliefs. maybe a linguist can tell me the word for being able to ask a question on something that is sacred to other peopl's beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.136.191 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not getting a clear answer because there isn't one. Sorry - read something into the question that wasn't there Different people have different things they mean when they use the terms "atheist" and "agnostic". Wiktionary has relatively decent definitions: atheist gives both "A person who does not believe that deities exist" and "A person who believes that no deities exist" - which one is the "real" meaning of "atheist" depends on who you talk to. agnostic is a little more convoluted, but can in part be condensed to: "A person who holds ... that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable." Note that there are technically four different definitions in that one sentence. Someone can hold that the existence of a deity is unknown without holding that it is unprovable, for example. And someone can hold that an unprovable thing is still somehow knowable. Throw in the closely related "A person who holds ... doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a God or of all deities," and you get another three related but distinct definitions. Like with "atheist", which one is the "true" definition of "agnostic" depends on who you ask. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble with the definition of agnostic as "A person who holds ... that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable" is that it doesn't really rule out either atheists or theists. Even the most devout Christian/Jew/Muslim and even the most Dawkinsesque strong atheist will concede that no one can know for a provable, scientific fact whether or not God exists; the theist rather believes he does, while the atheist believes he doesn't. However, in common usage, agnostic tends to mean "one who does not take a stand on whether or not God exists", or "A person who holds ... that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable" and leaves it at that rather than either proceeding to believe or disbelieve despite the unknowability of the answer. +Angr 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The literal translations are "without God" and "without knowledge (of God)". There isn't one definite meaning of either term in actual usage, as the recent discussions may have demonstrated. :)  A good practical rule - if someone describes themself as an atheist, it's safe to call them an atheist, and (perhaps) then ask them exactly what their beliefs are.  Until then, don't hand it out as a label. Tevildo (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the terms are sufficiently vague as to enable a person to be both an atheist and an agnostic. They may strongly believe there's no such thing as a God or gods, but may also believe the question is not provable one way or another.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On a personal note, the primary difference seems to be between "I don't believe in God" and "I don't believe in God, and neither should you." But this won't make it into any reference work. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly because many atheists and agnostics would disagree with that definition, and even see it as dismissive or disparaging of atheists. To me, the first of your suggestions is a textbook definition of atheism, while the second is simply a definition of someone who thinks the world revolves around them - and they exist in every belief system. --NellieBly (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Appropriate apologies. On the other hand, the distinction I intended to make was between the Dawkins'/Myers'/O'Hair's of this world, and the vast majority of atheists who just - well - don't believe in God.  "Atheist", being associated with the former group as well as the latter, is a term that requires careful usage. (Incidentally.  Are those apostrophes correct?  They don't look very good now, but, without them, my posting looks decidedly illiterate...) Tevildo (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The most common difference between the two (certainly in this part of the world) is that an atheist believes that there is no God (or gods); an agnostic is does not actively believe or disbelieve - that is, they live their life without religion, but are uncertain whether or not God (or gods) exist. Grutness...wha?  23:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

program of c
Moved to Computing Ref Desk. here -- LarryMac  | Talk  17:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1984
what is the word(the verb) in the film of 1984 ofsomeone-Big Brother- rewriting the present to present a distorted view of the past?Cookie8590 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know about the film, but in the book the actual process of changing the records is called "rectifying", as I recall. Doublethink is the mental process through which one comes to accept the ever-changing history. Deor (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they gave Winston Smith a job title. I remember he was an "editor," but I think that was the most specific it was. I'll pull out my copy and see if I can find anything else. Livewireo (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, Winston worked in the Records Department at the Ministry of Truth. He, of course, made sure to "rectify" historical documents and made good use of the memory holes. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

English Umlaut?
At choir practice tonight, we came across two words that had what I believe would be called an umlaut if it were in German. One word from the English Hymnal was “Adonaï”. Presumably this is a transliteration of a Hebrew word but how do you pronounce it? The other was from a Herbert Howells piece with words by Robert Bridges. The word in question was “Goddës”, which seemed to be a bit of faux Middle English to make the thing scan properly. Again, how is this pronounced and what is this accent called in English? Some religious lyrics use an acute accent in words like “blesséd”; were accents like this ever used in Middle English, or are they just Victorian fantasy? Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Diaresis for the name of the symbol. It's used, in words containing two adjacent vowels, to indicate that the two vowels are pronounced separately - "Adona-i" not "Adony". *(See below.) In older texts, you'll often see "zoölogical", "coördinate", etc, rather than the more usual hyphen.  The acute accent is used when the vowel is _not_ next to another vowel, but is pronounced when it normally wouldn't be. ("Goddës" is likely to be, as you deduced, an artificial bit of orthography).  I don't know when this usage of the accent came in, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Diaresis is also known as Tréma. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Martin.
 * Older spellings of the word naive (as naïve) still use the diaresis - the pronunciation of the separate letters in that case (ny-eev) demonstrates the point as far as Adonaï is concerned. The acute is found frequently on -ed endings in older texts to indicate a separate pronunciation of the suffix, and is still occasionally encountered in poetry (consider the difference between "The priest blessed the couple" and "they had a blesséd life"). But, as Alansplodge suggests, I suspect they are likely to be poetic usage only rather than something which was widely used by writers in general. Grutness...wha?  23:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the grave accent that is used in English in this manner, not the acute. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of Middle English, with the caveat that spellings were not standardized and anything and everything could be "correct." Goddës means "God's" (possessive) not "Goddess" (female deity).  The wikisource version of the tales uses "a Goddes name!" (general prologue line 856), meaning "in God's name."  The diaresis is optional, but probably there as a visual cue of an unusual spelling.  SDY (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Marginally related: You'll sometimes see a diaeresis used in English-language texts in names that have been romanised/transliterated from Russian, such as Pëtr, Potëmkin, etc. These are worse than useless, imo.  The whole point of romanising is to render the words in symbols comprehensible to a person who has no knowledge of the source language.  The Russian letter ë (which as often as not doesn't even use the diaeresis anyway - it's a long-running debate) is equivalent to the English "yo"; hence "Pyotr" and "Potyomkin" (although Potemkin is just as commonly seen, which is a somewhat misleading romanisation and leads to a mispronunciation). --  JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and is also the reason why a lot of English-speaking people often continue to pronounce the last vowel on surnames such as Gorbachev like the vowel in "head", rather than the one in "yacht". Grutness...wha?  23:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would the vowel in "yacht" be correct? In proper Russian, it would be more like the vowel in "loaf".  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I was taught Russian by someone with an unusual accent, the vowel in "yacht" is much closer than the one in "loaf". Hmmm.... that is, unless you're an American, in which case, you probably pronounce yacht in a completely different way to me. Yacht - here, at least, is /jɒt/ or /jɵt/, loaf is /loʊf/ - and the Russian ë is far more like /ɵ/. Grutness...wha?  08:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that "ɵ" a schwa? In that case, I have never in my life heard yacht pronounced with that sound.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a shortened vowel but not a schwa. That would be ə. Grutness...wha?  14:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the spelling "diaresis" given above is wrong. The symbol is either a dieresis, a diaeresis, or a diæresis, according to your preferred style of spelling.--Anonymous, 05:11 UTC, October 24, 2009.


 * *Re : Adonai and User:Tevildo's description above: the final letters a and i in this common transliteration (or transcription) represent the Hebrew alphabetic elements alef-kamatz, read as a vowel currently pronounced as [a] (vs. the older "Ashkenazic" European [o], retained today in Yiddish), and the letter yod, otherwise a consonant (e.g. in the leading position) but here a semivowel functioning as a "y-glide" off the preceding vowel.-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks one and all.
 * Re: User SDY:- Thanks; I read the Canterbury Tales at school and I later read Thomas Mallory's Arthurian Works, both in the original ME; however I don't remember seeing accents in either. Still begs the question; are they authentic Middle English or a later add-on?
 * Re: User Paul Davidson:- The article on the Acute accent seems to suggest either can be used, but I'll check the original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul Davidson that the grave accent is standard for the "-ed" endings in English. I don't think I've ever seen an acute accent on a fully English word, but someone will no doubt find a usage that is not an error.    D b f i r s   19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup - my slip, it is the grave. As to the acute, it's not used on fully English words, but it is often used on loan words (even though the usage there is somewhat old-fashioned and - dare I say it - passé. Café is another loan-word where you'll sometimes see it used). Grutness...wha?  23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I'd forgotten about "café". I think I would consider this to be almost "fully English" though I'm not sure how I would define the concept .    D b f i r s   08:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Resumé is another one. Grutness...wha?  14:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Début and première are frequent visitors to WP articles, unfortunately. --  JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's good (literary!) authority for using the diaeresis over a single vowel to indicate that it is not silent: see Brontë! --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)