Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 February 7

= February 7 =

verbs used as nouns
I've just heard a radio announcer say that some communities affected by the Black Saturday bushfires are "getting together this morning for breakfast and a remember".

What's this called, when a verb is used as if it were a noun? I don't think it fits into the definition of gerund.

Other examples include:
 * Let me have a go
 * I think I'll give it a try
 * Why don't you have a think about it and let me know how you feel
 * Let him have a play
 * I have an invite to the party
 * That cafe serves eats

I guess some of these could be classified as nouns in their own right, but not all of them. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to meet the criteria for verbal noun either. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what it's called, but I think it would be classed as a form of grammatical conjugation in English. Basically what's happening is that an article is being attached to intransitive, temporally continuous verb to create a instance of an action (thus, 'to walk' becomes 'a walk') which can be referred to as an object noun.  it might be a remnant of grammatical case from old English and Germanic word forms (latinate derivatives usually form nouns by a straight inflection by adding an 'ion' suffix - e.g. separate -> separation).  I think you'd need a real lingusitics expert to answer this, though.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's called conversion (linguistics). When people convert a noun to a verb in this way, it's sometimes informally called "verbing", so you could verb "noun" and say that the original examples are examples of "nouning". --Anonymous, 07:45 UTC, February 7, 2010.


 * It's nothing to do with either 'conjugation' (which is to do with varying the form of something which is already a verb) or 'case' (which is to do with the grammatical role and/or form of a word which is already a substantive). And its not exclusively done with intransitives, (though there are perhaps more examples of those): "have your say", "make one's needs known". --ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also "kill" (as in 'road kill') and some culinary examples (bake, slice, roast, fries ...). Thanks for the answer, Anonymous, and everybody else for your ideas.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

logical consequences
I have been using the term "logical consequences" to describe what schooling does not do. I maintain that issuing "grades" to a learner is not a "logical consequence" of learning.

After having perused the definitions here of my typed search term, "logical consequences", I begin to see the error of my ways.

What I am seeking is a term to describe and differentiate the consequences one experiences in moving through actions, activities, real life, and attributing the consequences, or "success" of one's attempts. Some counter-examples to those of "grades" used in schooling:

learning to hit a ball with a bat; working a math problem and arriving at the correct answer (OK, this may not apply well to calculus, but 42 is 16)...you really do not need someone to "grade" you on these, either you connect the bat with the ball, either your math problem is worked correctly or not. (If you have not learned your times tables, and assume 42 to be 8, plugging your answer back into the terms of the problem will result in an inequality.) Importantly, one does not necessarily need another to "grade" them on these results because the consequences are obvious; however, that is not to say that one cannot use another's instruction to help them achieve the desired consequence, e.g. in learning to hit a ball with a bat (then hit it farther or direct it specifically to left field or avoid a fly ball).

What term can I use to differentiate this kind of experience--the "grading" in schooling vs. your practice shooting hoops results in your getting the ball in more often? S h a r o n z t h o t s (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You mean success in some activity for its own sake, as opposed to meeting some essentially arbitrary criterion? I can't think of a particular phrase (but "logical consequences" certainly doesn't suggest to me anything to do with this question). --ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have an article on logical consequences, but it makes no mention of how that term is used in education and discipline, where it basically means "letting the punishment fit the crime". +Angr 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the OP was suggesting that the term was used in education, just that that was how she had referred to it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about education per se, but it's definitely used to refer to a type of discipline: if a child abuses a privilege, the logical consequence is that that privilege is revoked (at least temporarily). Other punishments such as spanking or sending the child to bed without any dinner are not logical consequences because they're unrelated to the misbehavior itself. I assumed that the OP was extending this meaning of "logical consequence" to education, and that maybe she wasn't the only person who had ever extended the meaning in this way. +Angr 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How can i add new language?
how can i add new language for article already on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitham.alazab (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean adding a link to a new non-English article on the equivalent English article, you add xx:Article name at the bottom of the respective English article, where xx refers to a language code (2 or 3 characters) and the article name is its name of the non-English article. WP:MI --  the Great   Gavini  14:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe that should actually refer to WP:IL. -- the Great   Gavini  14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

English to Spanish
How would 'the strum' as say a title for a movie be translated into Spanish? Thanks a lot 87.111.102.155 (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As in, a literal guitar strumming? Maybe El rasgueado from rasgueado but that seems to be a particular strum technique.  If there is an English film called The Strum, it may be called something very different in Spain or Latin America or both.  --  the Great   Gavini  14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The DRAE seems to apply it generically, so maybe El rasgueado. --  the Great   Gavini  14:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorted then, thanks for your prompt replies 87.111.102.155 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "segregation"
Does it imply that the separation of people of different groups is intentionally planned and malicious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.243 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Planned probably, but not necessarily malicious. Many religious groups segregate men and women, for example. In some cultures different racial or caste groups have chosen segregation themselves to some extent.--Shantavira|feed me 18:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Separating oneself voluntary is not usually called segregation. Segregation is more like involuntary. Basically a synonym for apartheid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article at Segregation lists many types, from race to gender, to bicycles and cells. Most would not appear to be, prima facie, malicious. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * correction: segregation in the US is equivalent to apartheid in South Africa; the term segregation may be used differently in other countries that lack US political history.
 * That being said, there are only two common forms of political/social separation: cases where a group self-isolates in order to preserve their internal status quo (common with religious groups), and cases where a group is isolated by a more powerful group (through implicit or explicit use of force) to preserve a status quo that disadvantages the less powerful group. That's why American Indians were put on reservations, why Jews were clustered in ghettos long before the Nazis, and why people of color have found themselves with political restrictions in many places in the world.  the idea of 'mutual' segregation (were both sides agree to it as a matter of collective preference) is largely a fiction promoted by the more powerful group in the second case; I cannot think of a single example in history where two groups actually decided to live in the same space but have nothing to do with each other.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the context of US experience, de jure and de facto can also be important distinctions (though admitted in terms of schools not residential patterns).--71.111.229.19 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * that's true, yes, and I think it can be extended to other contexts as well. For instance, I don't think there was any overt ghetto-ization of Jews prior to the 1930's, and I know for a fact that asian districts in western US cities arose informally rather than through explicit zoning practices.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean by "overt" that they are kept in a ghetto as prisoners by a hostile host nation, then maybe not, but the Jews lived in ghettos in the Middle Ages. (Nothing along the lines of a Warsaw Ghetto, but still segregated.) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "I cannot think of a single example in history where two groups actually decided to live in the same space but have nothing to do with each other." – well, here's one example: . It generally happens when a third, stronger party, comes to rule over communities with a long-standing feud. No such user (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the term "self-segregation" used to describe some African-American students' tendency to hang out mostly with other black students on diverse campuses. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is covered briefly under Racial segregation, with regards to home ownership. But yoru comment reminds me of the related concept of Separatism. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Translation
Could someone who is native speaker of Hebrew translate this for me?

Which war between Israel, Syria and Egypt first enabled Israel to extend its borders into the West Bank?

Could you also either transliterate your translation into the Latin alphabet or, better still, add the massoretic vowel signs? I am capable of reading Hebrew when they are present.

Thank you! Luthinya (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ?איזו מלחמה בין ישראל, סוריה ומצרים הראשונה איפשרה ישראל להרחיב את גבולותיה אל תוך הגדה המערבית
 * Eizo milchama bein yisrael, suria v'mitzrayim harishona ifshara yisrael l'harchiv et gevuloteha el toch hagada hama'arvit?
 * However, Israelis refer to the West Bank as shtachim (territories), as the term 'West Bank' refers to the plot of land in relation to Jordon (and, for obvious reasons, they do not refer to this last as having anything to do with Jordon).
 * And I got that from here.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the placement of the word "harishona" (first, as in 'initially') may not be placed properly with this translator.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand Israel wanting to ignore the nation of Jordan, but the term "West Bank" refers to the west bank of the Jordan River, doesn't it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The West Bank is hardly referring to the west bank of the Jordan River as much as it refers to that portion previously administered by Jordan that exists as a west bank of the Jordon. North and south of the West Bank are still the west bank but are not called the West Bank -- wow...does any of that make sense to anyone but me?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I follow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The correct translation (by a Hebrew speaker):

?אֵיזוֹ מִלְחָמָה, בֵין יִשׂרָאֵל סוּרְיָה וּמִצְרַיִם, לָרִאשוֹנָה אִפְשְרָה לְיִשׂרָאֵל לְהַרְחִיב אֶת גְבוּלוֹתֶיהָ אֶל תוֹךְ הַגָדָה הַמַעֲרָבִית

Ezo milkhama, ben yisra'el suria umitsrayim, larishona ifshera leyisra'el leharkhiv et gvulote'ah el tokh hagada hama'aravit?

HOOTmag (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

English word stress (compared with Greek and Latin)
English changes the stress of many, if not most borrowed words. As an example, here's a list of some Greek words with their stress marked both in Greek and English (with an accent "´").

Some of these, such as "chorus", seem to have received the stress on the second last syllable by way of Latin, but there are also many cases in which the stress was moved away from the second last syllable, as in ánarchy and Andrómeda. Given that Greek has a long tradition of marking accents, why did the scholars not simply stick with those? Who defines where a word is to be stressed, anyway? &mdash; Sebastian 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, what is marked by accent diacritics in ancient Greek (Alexandrian orthography) is tonal pitch accent, and not "stress" in the English sense at all. In traditional grammars of ancient Greek, stress is known as ictus (a Latin word), and has little correlation with the accent diacritics.  The ancient Romans already basically ignored Greek accents when pronouncing words that had been borrowed from Greek into Latin, so it's unrealistic to expect such pitch accent patterns to persist into modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * English phonology has a pretty complicated system for determining where accents fall; if I remember correctly, a very oversimplified rule is that words often want to be stressed on the antepentult (3rd-to-last syllable) if they can, but if a word is shorter than that (as in "chorus") the stress will have to fall elsewhere. Of course, there are lots of other things that can change this. Bruce Hayes' book Introductory Phonology has a chapter on stress rules.
 * As for "who defines where a word is to be stressed, anyway"...well, no one does. Or everyone does, take your pick. Just like most things about language, stress just ends up where it is because that's how people in the past started saying it, for whatever reason. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for your excellent replies. AnonMoos's explanation goes a long way at explaining why the correlation between Greek accents and English stress is low. Still, one might expect that in those cases that were not shaped by Latin, such as 19th century coinages, scholars would simply default to stressing the words where the Greek accented them. I presume the principles Bruce Hayes describes must have won over. I apologize for wording the question "who defines this anyway" in such casual way. I know that language in general is (most of the time) defined by no one or everyone. But that's easier to understand when there's either more time involved, or when there's more interaction. It's harder to imagine that a word like "synecdoche" has had enough oral tradition for one pronunciation to become cemented in common knowledge. The canonization must have happened within a very small group. For the same reason, though, the question becomes probably less interesting. &mdash; Sebastian 03:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (Changed the word marked in red. &mdash; Sebastian 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Of course, stress is not fixed even if the language stays the same: consider controversy vs controversy, harrass vs harass, and many others. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many words where the stress changes the meaning, as in cónvict vs convíct. Often, these can be traced back to different stress in Latin, as in cŏnvĭctŭs vs cŏnvīctŭs, according to the rules Deor cites below. (I'm taking the diacritics from my Langenscheidts Großes Schulwörterbuch; although according to our article in both words the "vic" would be heavy, which is another contradiction I don't understand.) But what do you mean by "controversy"? &mdash; Sebastian 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Latin vowel length alternations in that position would not affect the position of Latin stress at all, and I don't think that English noun vs. verb stress alternations go back to Latin. AnonMoos (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sebastian, cŏnvĭctŭs and cŏnvīctŭs are both stressed on the second syllable; that syllable is heavy in both words. The difference is that in cŏnvĭctŭs the vowel is "long by position", i.e. the syllable is heavy because the vowel is followed by two consonants, while in cŏnvīctŭs, the vowel is "long by nature", i.e. the syllable is heavy because the vowel is inherently long (and just happens to be followed by two consonants). You're a German speaker, so I'll offer an analogue from German: in Osten the vowel o itself is short, but is followed by two consonants, so the syllable is heavy "by position"; in Ostern the vowel o is inherently long, so the syllable is heavy "by nature" (and just happens to be followed by two consonants). As for "controversy", I think what he meant was "controversy", indicating a common British pronunciation of that word with the stress on the second syllable, as opposed to the older pronunciation (the only one used in the U.S.) with the stress on the first syllable. +Angr 14:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Oste(r)n is a perfect example! So you're saying (along with AnonMoos) that the relationship cŏnvĭctŭs > cónvict ↔ cŏnvīctŭs > convíct is only a coincidence? That's a pity! &mdash; Sebastian 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a coincidence. In English, the stress difference between cónvict and convíct is due to the former's being a noun and the latter's being a verb. +Angr 13:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been aware that the verbs sometimes have different stress from nouns, but I had assumed that that was simply a consequence from Latin having different endings, and hence sometimes different word stress for each. You're suggesting that there is an independent English rule for that, which is is just what I had wanted to learn from this question, so I'll make a new sub section for it below. &mdash; Sebastian 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The traditional method of stressing syllables in ancient Greek words has been to (mentally) transliterate them into the Roman alphabet and pronounce them as if they were Latin words, stressing syllables as described at Latin spelling and pronunciation. That works for the personal names in your list and for most of the the direct adoptions, such as synecdoche, but not always for words that have reached English by a more circuitous route or have been naturalized more fully (like apocalypse rather than apocalypsis). Deor (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That probably explains a good many words. But if I understand the rule correctly, shouldn't áthlete (< ăthlētă), análogy (< ănălŏgĭă), and díalogue (dĭălŏgŭs) be stressed on the vowels I marked in bold? And what explains that the stress for ámphitheatre is all the way at the front? &mdash; Sebastian 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem that these three words are simply adapted to the English default (third syllable from the end). As for amphitheatre, I believe it has secondary stress on 'theatre', i.e. it is stressed like an English compound of 'amphi' and 'theatre'.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion about the English default; I'll add it to the section below since it's another example for a rule that's independent of Greek and Latin. As for the secondary stress, I agree that it has it. I tried to avoid talking about secondary stress since I felt it complicated matters, but you're right, many composite words do move the primary stress to the first part, as in "waterfowl". &mdash; Sebastian 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Two new stress rules independent of Greek and Latin
The discussion so far yielded two rules that I had not been aware of:
 * As Angr said, "the stress difference between cónvict and convíct is due to the former's being a noun and the latter's being a verb." What's the rule behind that?
 * I don't know that it's a rule as such. It certainly doesn't apply to all such words: "I employ people; people are in my employ" - employ is pronounced the same way here.  But fínance (n.) and finánce (v.) are stressed on different syllables.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonymous proposed an "English default (third syllable from the end)". Indeed, it is easy to find words where that is true, e.g. "análogy" from the above list. Is there anything to explain that English default? &mdash; Sebastian 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The noun stress vs. verb stress thing is likely to go back to earlier stages of English, when the main stress of a word was almost always on the first syllable of the main stem. If there were two stems in a word (i.e. the word was a compound), then the first syllables of both stems were stressed, but the first syllable of the first stem in the word received a greater degree of stress (the true main stress). There were a number of prefixes in the language (many prepositional in form), and when many of these prefixes were attached to nouns, then the resulting prefix+stem structure was often treated as if it were a stem+stem structure for the purposes of stressing (in other words, the stress pattern of such prefixed nouns was assimilated to the stress pattern of the very numerous compound nouns in the language). However, when prefixes were added to verbs, this was always treated as a prefix+stem structure for the purposes of stress (not as stem+stem) because there was no such thing as a compound verb in the language. This difference in stress patterning can still be seen in the pronunciation of words such as "understudy" (noun) vs. "understand" (verb) today. In Old English texts, stress is not marked, but the effect of noun vs. verb stress differences can be seen from the fact that many of the prefixes have special "weak" or reduced (i.e. unstressed) forms when attached to verbs, but normal unreduced forms when attached to nouns, as explained on page 30 of Old English Grammar by Alistair Campbell, where noun vs. verb contrasts such as andsaca "apostate", onsacan "to deny", or orthanc "mind", athencan "to devise" etc. etc. are given.

This pattern does not seem to survive as a noun vs. verb stress alternation in any old English vocabulary today (e.g. if the old stress patterns prevailed, then "answer" would now be stressed on its second syllable when it's a verb, etc. etc.), but it somehow succeeded in transferring itself over to certain words of Latinate (borrowed) vocabulary. AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Standing on the shoulders of giants - Latin
How do you say "Standing on the shoulders of giants knowing I shall never be one." in Latin? It's my motto and I think I'd prefer it in Latin. Thanks. 86.139.93.74 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Superstes in umerus humerus of giants gnarus EGO vadum nunquam exsisto unus."  DRosenbach  ( Talk 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? Please be joking. Marnanel (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't get an answer here, the Latin community on LiveJournal likes to debate these things. Marnanel (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This question is of course about the addition to the phrase "nanos gigantium humeris insidentes"; that wasn't so clear and led to a misunderstanding. My Latin isn't so good, but I'll try an answer anyway. First off, you can't just add the second part, you need to adjust the first part, too. The words "nanos ... insidientes" are "dwarves ... sitting" in plural (and accusative!), which isn't what you want. So you'd have to say "nanus ... insidiens". And then you can put the giants and the shoulders into singular, too, because you're probably not straddling several shoulders: "gigantis humero". At least, as a consolation for all that business with singular and plural, you don't need to translate the "I". For "knowing I shall never be one", I would replace "one" with "a giant", to be safe, and write "sapiens numquam gigantum futurus esse" for the addition. OK, that's just my stab at it.
 * BTW, we have a Latin Wikipedia, where there are a number of people whose Latin is better than mine, and who speak English, too. You might want to ask there at la:Vicipaedia:Taberna. If you do, please let them know about the discussion here — even giants can see farther when they stand on the shoulders of dwarves. &mdash; Sebastian 03:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The original phrase (by Bernard of Chartres, at least according to John of Salisbury) has "nanos" because of the Latin grammar, but it would just be "nani" in a standalone phrase. And of course if you want to leave out the dwarves, and it is a motto for one person, then it is just "gigantium humeris insidens", although that still means more than one giant, so "gigantis humeris insidens" for just one giant. For "knowing I shall never be one" I suppose you could say "me numquam futurum illum sapiens". That sounds very clumsy though. "Humeris gigantis quod me numquam futurum scio insidens"? It's not the most elegant thing to say in English, which is part of the problem. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the English is cumbersome, and it is difficult to make it pithy in Latin. If you are content to lose some of the original sense you could try something like 'Numquam aequabor gigantibus quorum umeris insido', literally 'I will never equal (passive aequabor in middle sense) the giants on whose shoulders I sit'. BTW, sorry to nitpick, but if the OP prefers to go with one of the earlier suggestions, it's worth pointing out that it should be 'insidens/insidentes' rather than 'insidiens/insidientes', the genitive plural of giants is 'gigantum' rather than 'gigantium', and Adam, I'm guessing you intended 'sciens' rather than 'sapiens' and something like 'talem' rather than 'illum'. Similar nitpicking welcome if there are any blunders in my own suggestion! Maid Marion (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, sciens...I was trying to think of how to say "never be one of them" without resorting to the Biblical/medieval "unus ex eis", but "talem" is much better. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, it's much appreciated. I really like this as it overtly references the famous metaphor: - I will never equal the giants on whose shoulders I sit.
 * 'Numquam aequabor gigantibus quorum umeris insido.'

But to stay closer to the original phrase, is either one of these correct then?


 * 'Nani gigantis humeris insidens sapiens numquam gigantum futurus esse.'
 * 'Nani gigantis humeris insidens me numquam futurum talem sciens.'
 * 'Humeris gigantis quod me numquam futurum scio insidens.'

I even quite like “even giants can see farther when they stand on the shoulders of dwarves.” from Sebastian.

Thanks once again. 217.39.87.228 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You want to keep the bit about the dwarves? The first two now say "standing on the shoulders of a giant dwarf". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is for two reasons:
 * "Nani" is plural, so it can not refer to you, since you're only one.
 * Even if you put it into singular and write "nanus ... insidiens", as I proposed, it still isn't clear that you are the dwarf. This is better in the second sentence, which has "me", but I'd still find it hard to parse.
 * That gives me an idea: How about if you moved the dwarf into your addition? As in "Sitting on the shoulder of giants, I know I will always remain a dwarf." That's more self-deprecating than your original statement, but it's more humorous (not to confuse with humerus!), and I think it could be well rendered in Latin. My stab at it:
 * Gigantis humeris insidens scio semper futurum nanum.
 * If you don't insist on using future tense for the dwarfhood, you could say
 * Gigantis humeris insidens semper scio esse nanum.
 * Just for variety's sake, I put the "always" before the "know" in the second version, which makes it "I always know". In both sentences, I put the "nanum" at the end of the sentence for effect, so that the sentence begins with the giant and ends with the dwarf. &mdash; Sebastian 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't omit 'me' or it will mean 'there is (or will be) a dwarf' rather than 'I am (or will be) a dwarf'. Also, didn't we fix on 'giants' plural? With these small adjustments, Sebastian's attempt becomes something like 'Gigantum umeris insidens scio me semper nanum futurum'. Putting nanum at the end is a nice rhetorical trick, but to my ear that word order sounds un-Latin. Maid Marion (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you all. You've been a great help and it seems better in Latin. Gigantum umeris insidens scio me semper nanum futurum 217.39.87.228 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone, too. I really enjoyed the teamwork, and I appreciate the Latin lesson by the gigantes humeris meis insidentes. ;-) &mdash; Sebastian 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)