Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 December 22

= December 22 =

Latin translation
Can someone translate this sentence into Latin please: "Since it is Latin, it must be profound". Thanks Lexicografía (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is the similar phrase, "whatever is said in Latin sounds profound", "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest "Latine dicto, necesse est altum". (It) being said in Latin, necessarily it is profound.  Or perhaps "Re latine dicto, necesse est alta".  The thing being said in Latin, etc.  --Anonymous, 06:01 UTC, December 22, 2010.
 * Res is feminine, so if you want to make an ablative absolute out of it, it would be re dicta. Pais (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer stamp for this one should read Roma locuta est, causa finita est. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the ablative absolute does not work. Without "re" it is not well-formed as an AA; with "re" it is well formed, but then the subject of the sentence cannot be the "res". --ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was intending the subject to be "it". Not permissible?  --Anon, 23:15 UTC, December 22, 2010.
 * No, the subject of the verb can't also be the subject of the ablative absolute...otherwise it's not absolute. Also, Latin doesn't really like to use "res" the same way we use "thing" in English, even though it does sometimes literally mean "thing". If I saw "re latine dicta" I would assume the intended meaning was "the matter was discussed in Latin". It is also odd to say "necesse est alta", because "necesse est" usually (always?) means "it is necessary that (someone does something)", and is followed by another clause with another verb. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course now that I've said that, I remembered the phrase res ipsa loquitur, heh... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

German for airport
Why Germans use the word 'airport' here? 83.6.194.60 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's fashionable, basically. See Denglisch. Lfh (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that due to the weather "Situation ist inakzeptabel". Makes me feel almost at home. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the actual German word for airport is probably something even they would choke on, like "playzvaraeroplenztakoffundlund" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is priceless. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The actual German word for airport is Flughafen (plural Flughäfen), which is used far more in that article than Airport is. I think it has more to do with journalists' tendency to use synonyms in order to avoid repeating the same word over and over again. Pais (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Literally translated as "flight harbor" or "flight port", which actually makes more sense than "airport" but is also more mundane. Meanwhile, there's the German word for "bra", which is shtoppenderfloppen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bra is actually "büstenhalter", which sounds almost as bad. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very old-fashioned word that has been almost completely replaced by its abbreviation: BH. Hans Adler 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, just like in English it was shortened from brassiere to bra. StuRat (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How to formulate this seemingly easy, yet for me not easy sentence?
When describing a symbol engraved into a piece of metal, in my case a sword which has a flat cross-guard and which points down, (meaning tip is down and pommel is top) how to best describe it? I've been trying to formulate this seemingly straight-forward, easy sentence in the best possible way, but truth be told, I've only ended up confusing myself.

"The symbol was a simple sword in vertical line, with the tip pointing down so that with a typically flat cross-guard it resembled the holy cross."

Or is it better to say :

"The symbol was a simple, vertical sword, with the tip pointing down so that with a typically flat cross-guard it resembled the holy cross."

or:

"The symbol was a vertically drawn sword with the tip pointing down and with a typically flat cross-guard, which made it resemble the holy cross."

I think all of these three variants could be bested.

As you can see, I'm struggling first and foremost with figuring out how to use the word "vertical", but I also feel that I don't manage to formulate the sentence in a way that let's me point out that the cross-guard is flat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.152 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The default orientation for sword symbols seems to be blade-vertical with the tip at the bottom. If it was angled in any other direction, that would obviously need to be mentioned.  But maybe the vertical orientation can be assumed and not mentioned at all.  That would make the rest a lot easier to express.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  19:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the 3rd version, although I'd add more commas:

"The symbol was a vertically drawn sword, with the tip pointing down, and with a typically flat cross-guard, which made it resemble the holy cross."


 * You could also split it into two sentences, and shorten it up a bit:

"The symbol was a vertical sword, tip down, with a flat cross-guard. Thus, it resembled the holy cross."


 * StuRat (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Tip down" unambiguously implies vertical. (And "pointing down" unambiguously implies tip down. Even in our soft and peaceful modern society, most people know which end of a sword is the pointy end.) The only other thing it might mean is diagonal, so readers who assume diagonal angles by default might get confused, but that serves them right. So, as above but without "vertical". Also if you ask me "A sword shaped and oriented to resemble the holy cross" would do the job better, unless you're writing for people who have never encountered Christianity, in which case they wouldn't know what "holy cross" means anyway even in the first version. 213.122.28.173 (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was concerned that it could be pictured as diagonal, and hence left the "vertical" in. When a sword is held in the hand, I believe that diagonal is the most common orientation, but this orientation is also sometimes used for a sword alone, and especially with crossed swords.


 * Saying a "sword shaped and oriented to resemble the holy cross" makes me think it was designed that way, while the original sentences didn't convey that (although perhaps the sword placement was for that effect). StuRat (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Some context would be useful to help with wording. Was it the original intent (appearing to resemble the Holy Cross), later supposition or advocacy (assigning intent), or just "happens to look like"? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The symbol was that of a sword in the orientation of and bearing a superficial resemblance to that of an upright crucifix (or Holy Cross)." Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, no, because a crucifix has a figure of Jesus on it, whereas the sword is only specified to resemble the holy cross. If you're writing for this wiki, you could simply wikilink Holy Cross. 86.164.62.234 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Would Anatomical terms of location help? 92.29.125.227 (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The symbol was that of a sword in the orientation of an upright Holy Cross, the sword's cross-guard forming the horizontal element." Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the piece of metal with the engraving part of a sword or not? Your initial description is ambiguous. Why not just say "engraved with a sword in the shape of a holy cross"? 92.29.122.99 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Swords have been common heraldic charges for centuries. You might inquire at the Heraldry portal for the standard description of such a sword, if that helps you.  Textorus (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-money laundering
I put this note on the talk page of the above article a couple of months back, but nobody has responded. Any thoughts here?
 * 'Anti-money laundering' seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't it read Anti money-laundering, or perhaps Anti-money-laundering? From looking at hyphenation and the Manual of Style I'm almost inclined to just make the move, but to which? Does anyone else have a comment, perhaps on what is most common elsewhere? The more I look at it, the less satisfactory the title seems. I'd suggest that 'anti-money-laundering measures' might be a better name still.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article states that "Anti-money laundering (AML) is a term mainly used in the financial and legal industries..." This would imply to me that it is an established term. If so, then the established hyphenation (or lack thereof, as the case may be) would be the best way to go, rather than the WMoS. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The most common style rule among U.S. book publishers for complex compounds of which one element is a compound is to place an en dash between the simple compound and the element that you want to combine with it. Now, I'm not sure if Wikipedia's character set includes en dashes, but the proper way to punctuate your term would be anti + en dash + money laundering.  Note the the en dash should be closed up with the words on either side of it.  Marco polo (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that, logically, we should write anti-money-laundering (with hyphens) or possibly anti–money–laundering (with en dashes), and I would use the extra hyphen to make it clear that I was not writing about the laundering of anti-money, but convention seems to trump logic in use of English. If, at some future time, moneylaundering becomes a single word, then the problem will disappear.    D b f i r s   22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From checking the sources (thought I had, but evidently not), it appears that 'anti-money laundering' is the established usage, and so per KägeTorä and Dbfirs I'll leave it as is. As for hyphen vs en dash, I'll not comment, on the basis that I never get this right anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, you can launder anti-money for only a fraction of a second, before it reacts with money and is annihilated. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Antimony laundering, anyone? --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  04:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Money laundering" is the term for the act, no hyphen (or en dash). "Anti-" is the proper prefix. Such are the challenges of the English language. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 03:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we can't get to the bottom of redundant negatives
Compliments of the season, dear wiki-friends.

I'm wondering why we use redundant negatives in sentences like "Let’s see if we can't get this sorted out once and for all", or "The council has voted to make an approach to the minister to see if he can't provide some extraordinary funding".

It's discussed here and here, inter alia. It's not mentioned here, that I can see. I'm wondering if the Ref desk can't come up with even more ideas about this logically absurd but historically well-attested linguistic phenomenon.

It seems to be mainly used where one or more approaches have already been tried and found wanting, but the desired outcome is still considered attainable with a little extra effort and a different approach. Is that the general view? -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. For what it's worth, it always seems to be the specific word "can't" that's used in these constructions, never "cannot". "Let's see if we cannot get this sorted out once and for all" just sounds unidiomatic to my ears, even though "can't" is a contraction of "cannot". This may be a significant distinction, or not. -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem redundant to me (of course, this may be because I am from the South, where weird constructions like this abound!) - literally, "let's challenge ourselves and see if we can't". Lexicografía (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lexicografia, it doesn't seem redundant to me. (NB: I'm an AmEng speaker and I think this is more BrEng, so my intuitions may be iffy.) My impression is that this expression connotes a higher expectation that minister can/will provide some extra funding, whereas "see if he can provide some extraordinary funding" connotes more that we're just trying it out and we're not sure that it going to happen. rʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does seem to denote a higher expectation of a positive and successful outcome. What's odd, to me, is that we use a negative word to make something that's positive even more positive.  Is this not so?  That's another example of where we use a negative word not as a negative as such, but to provide a nuance of meaning that's not there without the word.  Such examples are few and far between, so they are the exception rather than the rule. --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that some of that nuance also falls on the "see if..." structure, though. "See if X" suggests that you're uncertain about X and you're sort of exploring. Thus, "see if someone can X" suggests that you're not sure he can X and you're just testing the waters; "see if someone can't X" suggests that you're not sure he can't X, from which you can make the jump (although maybe it is a bit of a jump) to saying it suggests that it's unlikely he can't X (that is to say, likely he can X). That's my feeling, at least, but now I've been thinking about it too much so I don't have any natural intuitions anymore! (If I even had any to begin with, being a non-BrEng speaker!) r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is my experience as well, yes. Lexicografía (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing if you can do something necessarily also tells you if you can't do it, and vice-versa. So, it's not redundant in the usual American sense, meaning repeated.  However, the "not" (or "apostrophe t") is unnecessary, which is another meaning (mainly outside the US), of redundant.  As for why people say it that way, it just seems to be a style issue, to me. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I follow your opening sentence, Stu. If you test some action and it turns out you can do something, then what you know is that you can do it.  You don't know you can't do it, because you know it is not the case that you can't do it.  And vice-versa.  Now, if you’re testing something out to see whether or not it produces some result, then you know whether or not it produces that result.  That’s an important difference between 'if' and 'whether'.  And it applies in the cases I’m using: it’s always Let’s see if we can't get this sorted out once and for all, never Let’s see whether we can't get this sorted out once and for all.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also used sometimes with "won't". For example: "The council has voted to make an approach to the minister to see if he won't provide some extraordinary funding", and also occasionally with "didn't" here in the north (UK).  I agree that this negative construction seems to be used in situations when there has been some previous discussion without a successful outcome.    D b f i r s   23:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

JackOfOz -- French has negation that's even more peculiar, if you don't understand the conventions involved; see fr:N%C3%A9gation en fran%C3%A7ais... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see Rich, Patrick, What is n’t Doing There?: French Expletive Negation in Comparative Clauses (this is based on a poster from the 2010 LSA conference) for some review/discussion of that. <b class="IPA">r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Latvian has double negatives for negative, however, different from Kissingerisms (e.g., "it's not unlikely that X won't Y")&mdash;more to the points above, what message is being communicated (necessity or probability) and to whom is key to how obtusely something is stated. To the original question, the clear implication is of likely repeated prior attempts and failures. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a consensus. Thanks all for your thoughts.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  19:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)