Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 February 6

= February 6 =

Latin "re-"
Do you guys know the etymology of Latin "re-"? Or is that to old?174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a second here! I agree with most of what you guys are saying about the preposition re.   But at this point we must be careful we are distinguishing between the prefix re- and the noun re (now found in stilted phrases like res ipsa loquitur and res judicata).   They are both Latin but the noun (in the ablative form, by the way) does not imply "repetition" but a case (to which an opinion will be attached).   When you open up a legal report and see the phrase in re it has nothing to do with repetition but rather with the case that is docketed, and ultimately to be prepared for a judicial decision.   And while we are on the subject, the Latin noun religio is not about kneejerk repetition (as in the kneejerk repetition of ritual for the sake of ritual) but for the binding of faith or opinion.    In  these last few instances, re comes not from the preposition re but from the root of the deponent verb reor - give a reckoning or idea (as in a judicially "true" legal opinion,  re).   My chief point here, is that the noun res (with ablative re), the verb reor, and the adjective reus are all connected to the same root, and it isn't the same root as found in the preposition re- Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, my old Webster's only covers the Latin as a root. It's such a basic, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to Sanskrit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This link doesn't exactly answer the question, but it's of some interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It can't possibly go back to Sanskrit, since Latin is not descended from it. Maybe you mean Indo-European? --216.239.45.130 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They could have a common root. English is not descended from Chinese, either, yet "ma" means "mother" in both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that the Sanskrit word given at the linked page is etymologically relevant. The Indo-European root appendix of the American Heritage Dictionary connects it with the Latin word retro "backwards", and more speculatively with Latin vertere, verto "to turn" and its cognates. AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Neither of the sources I turned to - Pokorny's Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch nor Philip Baldi's Foundations of Latin - mentions the prefix; So that AHD reference above may be the best we can find.
 * The Sanskrit site that Bugs mentions is very nearly worthless: besides using an idiosyncratic transliteration, it perpetuates the outdated nonsense that English and other European languages "derive from" Sanskrit, and many of its etymologies are plain wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lewis and Short sometimes has etymologies, but not for re-. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Meillet's etymological dictionary (1951 ed.) says re(d)- is unknown outside the Italic languages ("on ne connaît ailleurs aucun correspondant").--Cam (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then the apparent answer to the OP's question is that as far as is known, it originated with Latin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * as far as is known: that's a good example of the use of the passive to conceal something (remember we discussed this recently?). It may be that some scholars out there know differently, but people responding to the Wikipedia Language reference desk have concluded, from the references available to them, that it originated with Latin.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't hold back. In plain English it's "weasel words". But if the farthest back it can be traced is Latin, then that's all we know about it. For a loose comparison, I don't know who my great-great-great-grandfather is in my Mom's side, but I am confident that there was one. Likewise "re-" may well have originated in whatever Latin evolved from, but that doesn't mean we know what and when. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish "re-"
What is the etymology of Spanish "re-"?174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From its Latin root, naturalmente. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it have all three meanings in Latin? If not, how did it acquire the added meanings? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  08:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Latin prefix was "red-" ("re-" before consonants), which was basically a prefix to verbs (though it could appear in other parts of speech if these are derived from a basic verb), and according my dictionary could mean "back", "against", or "again"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am told that the original form is re; in some forms before consonants, reduplication can occur and hence after syncopation the form red appears; for instance, re+do->redido->reddo. Also, repperi, etc. Pallida  Mors  16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not explain cases such as redeo, redire "to go back" and just about every other case where the prefix is added to a vowel initial verb (with the dubious exception of reicio, where the prefix is added to iacio, which would have originally been pronounced with a [y] consonant sound). AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. All I can say in my ignorance is that, according to the OLD, the form red in those cases was formed by analogy with pro/prod. Pallida  Mors  16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read Refried beans, the "re" comes from Mexican Spanish "very". Woogee (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My OLD marks the following 7 Latin senses for the prefix: movement back or in reverse, withdrawal, reversal of previous processes, restoration, response or opposition, separation, and repetition. All of them are present in the Spanish counterpart. The third meaning in the wiki Spanish definition [intensification] has two implementations, one with verbs and one with adjectives. The former is more idiomatic, while the latter is very productive, though very informal. As far as I know, this meaning [intensification] is not present in Latin re; this language uses for that effect the prefix per (e.g. pergaudeo, perdoleo, perabsurdus. Pallida  Mors  16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you Brits say "emphasise"?
I'm trying to correct an article that's supposed to be in British English, but being an American I don't know. "Emphasise" in particular looks funny to me, I just wanted to check to make sure it's right. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean spelt with an s as opposed to a z? Yes. FiggyBee (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Brits don't say "emphasise", they say . But they do spell ‹emphasise›, unless they're using Oxford spelling, in which case they spell it ‹emphasize›. +Angr 09:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c)In British English either is acceptable. There is a lengthy discussion at American and British English spelling differences.--Shantavira|feed me 09:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You very rarely see it with "ize" here. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When writing, I would always use "ise" and only if it looked really odd would I consider changing the "s" to "z" - that's with a "zed" not a "zee" :-) The "ize" spelling nearly always looks American to me.  Astronaut (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Colon and dash
Is there a difference between the use of a colon and the use of a colon and a dash at the same time, like ":" and ":–"?--Mikespedia (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that the colon + dash is becoming more widely used in place of a plain colon, probably because it is then more clearly distinguishable from a semi-colon. However, this suggests differently, and also states that the colon and dash together are known to printers as a "full set".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it an urban myth then, that London printers call :- "the dog's bollocks"? Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No professional typesetter would use a colon-dash combination (even a comma-dash combination is frowned upon). It isn't even mentioned in the colon article. The dash is superfluous. I can only think it's used in handwritten work to make it more easily visible.--Shantavira|feed me 15:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe not nowadays, but I've often seen it in professionally typeset older works. Including this page I'm formatting right now for Wikisource (see the end of §74). +Angr 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Following my own rather vulgar link above, I see that the OED considers the colon/hyphen sequence is "obsolete". Maybe, but I see it often enough and use it myself; perhaps I read too many obsolete books! Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that colon-dash is largely obsolete, but returning to the original question, I'd also say that there is a difference. The colon-dash combination is only possible, if that style is being used, in a position where what would otherwise be a colon is followed by a line break because the thing that it introduces is a table, a list laid out vertically (one item per line), or perhaps a diagram or something. So you might have...


 * They had facilities in three cities: Toronto, Montreal, and Punkeydoodles Corners.

But:


 * They had facilities in three cities:&mdash;
 * New York, New York
 * Chicago, Illinois
 * Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania

--Anonymous, 07:35 UTC, February 7, 2010.

Please help me translating this "diplomatic English" into layman's terms. Thanks.
Hy there, could someone help me? I'm trying to understand the precise meaning of a sentence (Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles). I like to think that my knowledge of the English language is adequate, but not being a native English-speaker I wish to be sure that I'm not making a mistake. I'm not interested a precise word for word translation, I'm interested in the meaning of the whole sentence.

The sentence is as follows:
 * "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

Now I believe that in layman's terms this translates into the following (I do NOT claim that this translation is accurate, but this is how I understand it; if I'm wrong please explain my mistake):


 * "The Allies & Co hold Germany responsible, and Germany accepts this responsibility, for losses and damages inflicted by Germany and its allies upon the governments and nationals of Allies and Co. Said losses and damages are a consequence of the war imposed upon Allies & Co by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

I believe that the "as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies" is the tricky part of the whole translation. I choose to separate the original sentence for an easier understanding, did I do wrong? Flamarande (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it means that the Germans and their allies started the war and are responsible for all the damage; and (because they lost the war) they accept this responsibility (and will have to pay). — Kpalion(talk) 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it means the same as the OP's paraphrasing. However, I would disagree with Kpalion's addition of 'because they lost the war', as this is not mentioned nor implied in the original. In fact, it wouldn't have to be mentioned or implied, as without Germany and her Allies losing the war, this treaty would not have been written. --  KageTora - (影虎)  ( A word...? )  17:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer: the bits in parentheses are my own additions, not mentioned directly in the original text. — Kpalion(talk) 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree that Flamarande's rephrasing preserves the meaning. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The original is about losses/damages as a result of the war, but does not say that those are the only losses/damages.  If France suffered damages as a result of some other incident in 1911, they would not be covered by the treaty.  Flamarande's version states that all losses/damages are due to the war.  Try this further rearrangement:


 * "The Allies & Co hold Germany responsible for losses and damages to their governments and nationals, inflicted by Germany & Co in consequence of the war. Said war was imposed upon Allies & Co by the aggression of Germany & Co. Germany accepts this responsibility.


 * --Anonymous, 07:43 UTC, February 7, 2010.


 * A bit late for me to be jumping in here, but I think there's a subtlety that everyone's missing. The original phrasing includes mention of "loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war". I think this holds Germany and its allies responsible for loss and damage caused as a result of the war, but not directly inflicted by Germany. This would include, for example, reductions in Britain's peaceful industrial productivity caused by diverting production to the war effort. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that Flamarande is correct here. The article "The Myths of Reparations" by Sally Marks who is an leading expert on international relations in the interwar period, which was published in Central European History in 1978 says in substance exactly the same thing on pages 231-232. Please note that Article 232 of the Versailles treaty goes on to limit the Allied claim to civilian damages and excludes military damages. I hope this helps. --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)