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

= September 23 =

Eye color, FR>EN/HE
Documentation from Operation White Buses: A Dutch refugee's identity document issued in Stockholm (26 July 1945) is a bilingual form in Dutch and French, on which "marron clair" is typed in the field for "eye color." I thought this might be equivalent to the mottled greenish-reddish brown I'd call "light hazel" in US English, but Collins online via WordReference says light brown. As far as I (a native speaker) know, "chestnut" isn't an eye color in English nor for that matter in Hebrew (the eventual target language for this translation). I'd appreciate some clarification on the usage of these various terms. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a website giving you English translation (from French) by ten dictionaries, all of which translate "marron" as "brown", while "clair" is of course clear, i.e. light. Hence, the Hebrew term you're looking for is חום בהיר.
 * However, as you you've indicated (and as all of the dictionaries mentioned above indicate), "marron" may also be translated as "chestnut". French, like English and Hebrew (in which you're interested), uses "chestnut" - also as the color of chestnut. However, when using it as a color, Hebrew speakers tend to use it with regard to a hair color, and rarely - as an eye color, as you can see here.
 * To sum up: The more exact (though less usual) hebrew translation for "marron clair" - is ערמוני בהיר, whereas the more usual (though less precise) hebrew translation for "marron clair" - is חום בהיר.


 * HOOTmag (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Marron means "brown" in French, that simple. Chestnut is one meaning a dictionary gives (and probably the original meaning), but brown is another common meaning. Marron and brun both mean the same thing. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, although it's claimed here that brun is just one kind of marron. HOOTmag (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the definition "chestnut," familiar as a hair color to English-speakers, makes it difficult to see "marron" as purely an equivalent of the hue "brown." -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (post-EC) By "more 'exact'" I read "literal" – for translation as I know and practice it uses the culturally appropriate equivalent in the target language rather than a literal rendering . So just as the French say "marron clair" rather than "brun clair" in referring to eye color (and here Collins EN>FR contradicts its own FR>EN, cited above), I agree with HOOTmag that "light brown" => חום בהיר is the most suitable Hebrew. Wanting to know further what might be the Hebrew equivalent of the other color, hazel, my on-the-spot original reseach came up with nothing conclusive ("Not אגוז = hazelnut...maybe דבש = honey?"), so I suspect what English-speakers call hazel is simply not recognized as a distinct eye color among Hebrew-speakers. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hebrew speakers don't use the word "hazel" for eye color. Instead, they use the term "חום-ירוק", whose definition you can see here.
 * The term דבש - as an eye color - is possible, as you can see here. However, it's not for the hazel color, but rather for the honey color.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By the latter I take it you mean the eye color amber (English usage), which isn't a variegated "color" like "green-brown" for hazel. Again, what I'm looking for is the local (Israeli Hebrew) usage, regardless of which term has been adopted by other cultures in their respective languages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned דבש just because you' had mentioned it, but I didn't write that it's the local Hebrew term for hazel...
 * The local Hebrew term for hazel is חום-ירוק, as you can realize by comparing the definition for hazel and the definition for חום-ירוק.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ee, I could murder a cup o' tea
Is there a German equivalent to "I could murder a [foodstuff]" or "I'm dying for a [foodstuff]"? Obviously one could say "Ich hätte so gern..." but are there any equivalent idioms? I searched on leo.org and found nothing. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any synonymous idioms involving killing or dying, but there are more emphatic ways of saying you're dying for a particular food than "Ich hätte so gern...". "I'm dying for a drink/a cup of tea" can be "Ich brauche unbedingt einen Drink/eine Tasse Tee", which of course is much less colorful than the English. You can say "Ich habe einen Heißhunger auf X" or "Ich habe einen Japp auf X", which are like "I have a craving for X". Those are colloquial, but they aren't really idioms (in the sense of meaning something beyond the sum of their parts). +Angr 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Along the same line, you could say "Ich lechze nach einem/einer ...", but I can't think of a fitting colorful idiom either, though I'm sure I've encountered hyperbole such as "Ich hab' solch einen Huger, ich gäbe mein Leben für ein Stück Brot." Immediately understandable, but not a fixed German idiom. *Ich sterbe vor Hunger" is frequently used hyperbole, but unspecific regarding which foodstuff. One interesting colloquial synoym for a strong sensation of hunger is "Kohldampf" which sounds like a word compound meaning "cabbage-steam", but actually is of Rotwelsch origin. The parts, Kohl and Dampf come from Rotwelsch words, both meaning hunger. So it means "hunger-hunger". Kohldampf too is usually unspecified regarding which foodstuff though, rarely "Kohldampf auf xyz". ---Sluzzelin talk  13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, "ich gäbe mein Leben für einen/eine/ein [foodstuff]" might work after all. Other varieties: "ich gäbe alles für einen/eine/ein [foodstuff]" or "ich würde mein Leben für einen/eine/ein [foodstuff] hergeben/geben"---Sluzzelin talk  14:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Never written
what tee latin phrase which means it was never written? i know postscriptum means what has been written after.kindly help me.Vimbaiigwen (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with any such phrase, but if I had to translate "It was never written" into Latin I'd say "Nunquam scriptum est". +Angr 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Latin phrases (full) doesn't have any phrase with that meaning. The closest it has is "lex non scripta" i.e. Unwritten law, or common law. You could possibly use the non scriptus, -a, -um phrasing elsewhere. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Non est factum might be a possibility. Tevildo (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Latin definition
What is the Latin word for "ten"? Thank you.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's Decem > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decem#Latin --151.51.24.225 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * decem is also in Latin Wikipedia. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a whole host of words in the Romance languages and in English that are based on this Latin root word, its variants, and its Greek antecedents. There's "December", the 10th month in the Roman calendar. There's "decade", meaning a 10-year span. There's the "decagon", a ten-sided polygon. There's the term "decimal", which has to do with tenths. There are metric system terms like "decameter" and "decimeter", meaning 10 meters and 1/10th meter respectively. And so on. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Dime (United States coin), which is 1/10th of a dollar, also derives from decem. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

NY times - is it right?
Can this sentence be right? "In contrast, G.M. plans to shut 13 plants North American plants and lay off 21,000 workers as part of its turnaround plan."

Source: []. --Quest09 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to have quoted the sentence accurately from the article. If you mean "Is the grammar of the sentence correct?" then the answer is no, though I suspect that the first word "plants" is merely a typo. If you are asking about either the information contained in the sentence or its ethical basis, I'd have to do more research. Let us know if you need more. // BL \\ (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I only wanted to know if it was linguistically correct. Thank you. BTW, could the sentence be repaired without excluding the word "plants?" For example, "In contrast, G.M. plans to shut 13 plants, North American plants, and lay off 21,000 workers as part of its turnaround plan."--Quest09 (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say "yes, it could" be written that way for emphasis on the location of the plants, but it is not a method I would choose. YMMV // BL \\ (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Something more than commas would probably be needed for such an emphatic parenthesis: "In contrast, G.M. plans to shut 13 plants - North American plants - and lay off 21,000 workers..." Tevildo (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a more grammatically smooth way to correct the sentence would be: "In contrast, G.M. plans to shut 13 plants, North American plants, and lay off 21,000 workers..." Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is much more likely that the first occurance of "plants" was meant to be replaced by the phrase "North American plants" and the writer just forgot to remove the first "plants"... -- Jayron  32  21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that's the last occurrence of "occurance". :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Where vs. in which
I know how they differ, but what would be the proper, pedantic method to explain why? Something along the lines, perhaps, or "where is locational, while in which is conceptual or figurative."  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question - but is it not possible that there is no actual difference between the meanings of the two ie "in which" can always replace "where" with no change of meaning.
 * However "in which" is different from "where" in that it can also replace other relational clauses eg "that", "when" etc
 * Please see . This shows that the different relational clauses can be unnecessary for the language - since the correct clause can be inferred from the nouns involved.(Perhaps someone knows of a language which omits them, or an exception to that broad statement?)
 * Consider:
 * I'm happiest where I'm working : I'm happiest at the place in which I am working
 * I'm happiest when I'm working : I'm happiest at the times in which I'm working
 * Clearly in which requires extra context supplied when neccessary, since it is not as specific as what, where, when, why, how, who
 * 83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, "where" can be used more generally, whereas "in which" can only be used as an adjectival. Compare:
 * Where are you going?
 * * In which are you going?
 * r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * where may mean wherein and may also mean whereto (i.e. whither), i.e. it has various meanings. HOOTmag (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But those words are not "where", they're "wherein" and "whereto". Different words (or, you could argue, lexicalized phrases using that word). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My original argument was put briefly but it's rather simple: 1. Either of the words "wherein" (i.e. in which) and "whereto" (i.e. to which) can be a possible meaning of "which" "where". 2. "wherein" (i.e. in which) and "whereto" (i.e. to which) are two different concepts. Conclusion: "where" can't overlap be identical to "in which". HOOTmag (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion based on your earlier observations (you seem to be committing a paralogism, since the your first two points don't entail their 'conclusion'). The simple fact is that "where" does overlap with "in which", as can be easily demonstrated ("the box where the coins are hidden" and "the box in which the coins are hidden"). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ops! The correct conclusion: "where" and "in which" can't be identical.
 * Note that my "proof" is valid even when we ignore question sentences.
 * HOOTmag (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I think we all agreed that they're not identical. Also, I still don't see how your examples provide this inclusion; your point 1 and point 2 don't even mention the word "where". Your conclusion is correct, but your arguments aren't what led to it. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd replaced "where" by "which". Look again at the corrected version of my proof. HOOTmag (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, "in which" cannot always replace "where". However, "where" can always replace "in which" (and in my opinion, it always should). Note: I'm talking about "in which" as a complete prepositional phrase, not uses where like "In which year did you do that?" where "which" is an adjective. --Anonymous, 20:23 UTC, September 23, 2009.
 * Well, yes, that is the difference: "in which" is, derivationally, a prepositional phrase used as an adjective. Those are precisely the ones that can't be replaced by 'where': for example, "in which box did you hide the money" (or its less uppity version, "which box did you hide the money in?"). Replacing 'in which box' with 'where' is grammatical, but doesn't have the exact same meaning, which is enough to show that they're different. "Where" is technically an adverb, but it can always be replaced by a prepositional phrase (not always "in which", it could be different prepositions). For instance, where are you going from above can be replaced by to what place are you going. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a counter example to my previous comment - however note that the extra context has already been supplied:
 * A:I have lived in two houses one of which I was born in 
 * B:In which were you born? vs where were you born?

The second appears ignorant since the context of place has already been given, so there is no need to repeat it (would seem as if the original sentence had been partially ignored).83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just a difference forced by the context. For any linguistic expression, you can always find some context to make it grammatical or ungrammatical, different or not different; what's generally relevant is native speaker intuitions under normal circumstances, not under special forced contexts. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In essence, my question remains unanswered, I think. Or perhaps the answer is above, but I need to buy some cereal to get the decoder ring in order to find it. In a situation in which in which is not used as a prepositional phrase, is it to be described as an adjective? And when where is used, is it also an adjective? If so, when trying to explain to someone the difference, am I to say:

Would this be the most accurate explanation -- that's sort of what I wanted to know. The same way how one would pedantically explain to someone why their misuse of good vs. well is a misuse, and not just to say, "you used the wrong word."  DRosenbach  ( Talk 11:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, neither where nor in which is by itself an adjective; they're both prepositions (or, in syntax terms, complementizers) that introduce an adjectival subordinate clause. The full adjective is "in which the tooth is loose" (because you can ignore that and still have a grammatical, albeit illogical, sentence: "in a situation, do we extract [the tooth]?"). The difference there is, as you suggest, semantic: "where" originally referred just to places (although sentences like yours are widely used nowadays, so its meaning is expanding), whereas "in which" refers to anything that stuff can be "in", and doesn't have to be a place ("in a situation" -> "a situation in which", "in that song" -> "the song in which", etc.). where and in which have syntactic differences in other contexts, which are discussed above, but in your example here the difference is purely semantic. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In a situation in which we do not wish to be specific about time or place use 'in which' and not 'when' or 'where' since those terms imply either a time or location - which is not intended - alternatively hire a new assistant who has a better grasp of grammar...83.100.251.196 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Double interpretation of localities
A famous Finnish poem about going to school begins:
 * Olen unessa useasti sinun kaduillas, koulutie

This is intended to mean "In my sleep, I am often on your streets, school way". However, schoolchildren very quickly discovered it could just as well mean "On your streets, school way, I am often in my sleep", and used that as a schoolyard parody. As a native Finnish speaker, I can easily understand both interpretations are equally valid, but I can't come up with grammatical rules distinguishing between them. Does anyone know of any? Are there other languages with the same phenomenon? J I P | Talk 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Finnish, but I imagine this arises from syntactic ambiguity: the fact that sometimes an adverbial clause can be interpreted as 'modifying' several different parts of the sentence, other than just the one that was intended. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Syntactic ambiguity is common. But perhaps it's less common in Finnish? I'm thinking that a lot of languages resolve it through emphasis, as in: "Are we going out?" could be "Are we going out?" (Are we the ones that are going?) or "Are we going out?" (We're not staying in?) or "Are we going out?" (Are we really going to go?) Whereas in Finnish/Hungarian the stress would stay the same, but the word order would change - making it unambiguous in both written and spoken form. --Pykk (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, those examples aren't really syntactic ambiguity, as the structure is the same every time (the only difference is the focus and topic. A better example would be (if I may steal John Kimball's famous psycholinguistics example sentence) "John saw the girl with the binoculars". Did he use binoculars to see a girl, or did he see a girl who happened to have a pair of binoculars? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Finnish forms question sentences with the -ko/-kö suffix attached to the focus word, the questions presented above are unambiguous: Menemmekö me ulos? Are we going out or aren't we?; Mekö menemme ulos? Is it us that are going out?; Ulosko me menemme? Is it out that we're going? The word order is actually irrelevant to the meaning, it's the placement of the question suffix that's the important part. J I P  | Talk 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What does "school way" mean here? It's certainly not idiomatic English, unless it's a street called "School Way". —— Shakescene (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Never heard the term "school way" before. I'm sure that joke is a riot in Finnish. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my own attempt at translating koulutie, from koulu school and tie street, road, way. It simply means the way you take to go to school. As a non-native English speaker, I don't know if "school way" is the correct English term, but I couldn't come up with a better one. J I P  | Talk 06:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that English-speaking school children would just use the whole phrase "on the way to school" or "on my way to school" (or more cheerfully, "on my way home from school"), so (knowing absolutely no Finnish myself) the first meaning might be something on the order of "I am often in your streets on the way to school" or "along the way to school." But I could so very easily be off the mark. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So the original Finnish sentence can mean equally "In my sleep, I am often on my way to school" or "On my way to school, I am often in my sleep". Both interpretations are equally grammatical and valid. What is the grammatical phenomenon causing this? Does it happen in any other language? J I P  | Talk 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

German T-shirt
A while ago I saw a T-shirt in German that said "Wasch Brett Bär Bauch", with each word on its own row. I know what the words mean literally, but what is it trying to say? Thanks, Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk  21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a variation on the Six pack vs Rectus abdominis muscle aka 'Six pack' theme.
 * ie as a direct to english translation:
 * washboard stomach beer belly.83.100.251.196 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ie It's a joke - they chose beer over looks...83.100.251.196 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Close, but "Bär" means "bear", not "beer".  "Waschbrettbauch", does mean a well-defined, muscular, low-fat belly, a sixpack abdomen, but "Waschbärbauch" would mean "raccoon belly". Soft and cuddly, I guess. ---Sluzzelin  talk  21:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a fair chance that the wearer was a bear. Marco polo (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An excellent play on words in German that would probably work better in English the way the IP stated it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne > Melburnian
I'm interested in how and when and by whom it was decided that a resident of Melbourne would be a "Melburnian", rather than a "Melbournian". I've already made some enquiries @ the appropriate place but haven't made much headway. Is it normal for -bourne names to produce -burnian demonyms? "Melbournian" would be a reasonable stab for one who's never heard the word "Melburnian", but apparently it's considered grammatically incorrect. Here are theories that the -burnian spelling is either Latin (which I've always assumed) or even American! Is there a cite for the first time "Melburnian" was used? I've looked in vain. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All place names ending in -bourne derive from the old english burn or stream (as it still is in Scotland of course). The other Melbourne, from which the Australian one gets its name (by way of a viscount), derives from millstream. FWIW, people from Eastbourne are Eastbournians (if they're anything). Mikenorton (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an ozzie thing to me, probably because they pronounce the end /bən/ rather than /bɔn/? --Pykk (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But then, Holborn in England (not quite a -bourne name but probably related) is pronounced /hobən/ (not, as one might imagine, /holbɔn/). --  JackofOz (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's probably a London thing, I live in an area called Westcombe Park and the combe (elsewhere pronounced /cuːm/) bit is pronounced /cʌm/. Maybe the alleged influence of all those londoners on the Australian language is the reason for the /bən/ pronunciation. Mikenorton (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe. The pronunciation of the name of the city (/melbən/) certainly varies from the pronunciation of the name of the person after whom it was named (who called himself /melbɔn/).  But this is a side issue to my main question, one that's been niggling at me for years now.  Nobody seems to know where "Melburnian" came from.  Or even when it was first used, and by whom.  Is there an OEDophile here who can shed light on this?  The Melbourne of which I speak has existed only since 1837.  Indirectly, it was named after Melbourne, Derbyshire, which has been around since at least the 11th century.  Is it possible that the good folk of that place were always called "Melburnians"?  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any place-name of the form X-combe in which the deuterotheme is pronounced /cu:m/ like the full word? —Tamfang (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, Tamfang, but congratulations on being the first person in Wikipedia history to use the word "deuterotheme". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)