Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 June 15

= June 15 =

Spanish Translation
Can someone translate this sentence for me? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) A él siguieron los descendientes de esta casa real hasta Juan II de Aragón, quien cede Cerdaña, por el Tratado de Bayona, a Luis XI de Francia.
 * What's the source of the sentence? In any case, here's a stab at it: "[To he followed? - I think that's an idiom of some kind] the descendants of this royal house until Juan II of Aragón, who cedes/hands over Cerdaña, by the Treaty of Bayona, to Louis XI of France." Does that sound like it could be right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, it's from the Spanish wikipedia: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More idiomatic would be: "A él lo(le) siguieron..." tipically 'doubling' the object. Pallida  Mors  00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "A él" in the passage above just means "him", but in English we can't begin a sentence with a direct-object pronoun. So, perhaps the best way to translate the passage would be "The descendants of this royal house succeeded him up to John II of Aragon, who ceded Cerdanya, by the Treaty of Bayonne, to Louis XI of France." Marco polo (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree. Maybe ...succeeded him as counts of Cerdaña ... is clearer? Pallida  Mors  00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WWII wireless operator in AE
According to Wireless (disambiguation), wireless is "an old British term for radio." If a "wireless operator" was called a "radioman" in American English, what to call the position where the radio instrument (presumably a transmitter/receiver) was set up and operated? I'm writing (about Soviet partisan combat) for ELF readers and am trying to be succinct yet avoid ambiguities. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it was only a British term, I believe it's an old US English term, too. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How about just "radio position"? Radio sets for military use during World War II were portable, so they could be carried as needed to new positions.  Marco polo (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A quote from the London Times in 1941 (scroll down to the bottom of the page) gives "wireless station". "Radio" has supplanted "wireless" in modern UK English, so perhaps "radio station"? Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Radio station" occurred to me, but that term usually refers to an enterprise with one or more structures, broadcasting studios, a large tower, and so on. Since she is referring to a radioman with a very simple, portable radio set, the expression "radio station" could mislead readers into thinking that something much more fixed and elaborate existed. Marco polo (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhere between a totally portable setup and a radio station would be a radio shack. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OP concludes: I'm going with "radio communications" to imply rather than spell out the clumsy "transmitter/receiver" construction, and lacking details about the staffing, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Turned out well
I've just baked a loaf of bread which turned out wonderfully. Does the etymology of 'turn out', as in to result, have anything to do with turning loaves, cakes, etc. out of tins to reveal how well they've cooked? --Frumpo (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it might come from clothes, where collars, cuffs, and sleeves must be "turned out". So, if the sleeves, cuffs, and collar are all turned out properly, then you have "turned out well".  Firefighters still call their outfights turnout gear. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see that makes sense when describing the appearance of someone. However I wonder whether "How did it turn out?" (i.e. "Was it a success?") might have a different etymology. --Frumpo (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * According to my dictionary, there's an older usage in which being 'turned out' means being well-dressed. it also mentions that 'turning out' is a phrase for calling out guards, so there might be some linkage with guards being properly uniformed when 'turned out' (because the military in every age has a great concern for being dapper).  -- Ludwigs 2  23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Frumpo (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of "to hail from"
wikt:hail from doesn't tell me where this expression comes from.

It couldn't possibly have any connection with the ice that falls from the sky, could it?

It also seems unlikely to be associated with the greeting "Hail!", unless maybe in the sense "I bring greetings from my home town Gizzard's Gulch" = "I hail from Gizzard's Gulch".

Any ideas? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's from the same root as "hail" for "health", "a call from a distance", etc. Old Norse heill - health, sound. "Hail" that falls from the sky is from Old English hægl. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983, page 564, column 1. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I guess I'm a little befuddled as to how a word meaning "healthy" or "whole" came to mean such apparently different things as calling from a distance, greeting people, praising people, and a reference to the place of one's birth.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really answer your question, but according to the OED the "call from a distance" sense was originally a nautical usage (with reference to shouting from one ship to another) and the "hail from" use was a development of that, originally nautical as well. A ship was said to "hail from" its home port. (Perhaps the idea is that what would be called out to other ships from it was the news from that place.) Deor (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This involves an element of OR on my part, but Hail! (and earlier forms of this Germanic word) was an ancient greeting, I think particularly to a leader. (Forgive me for referencing "Heil Hitler", which was a self-conscious revival of an ancient Germanic greeting.)  It is an exact equivalent of the Latin Salve!, which literally means "Be healthy!"  To hail thus came to mean "to greet".  This verb then gained extended meanings.  One might hail a ship to express greetings, and this would have morphed into the simple idea of calling from a distance. One typically "hailed" someone who was worthy of respect, hence the connotation of praise.  I am getting a little speculative here, but I can imagine someone "hailing his lordship from his demesne at Chichester" or saying "we hail your majesty from Sussex" to a point, perhaps in early modern times, where "hail from" became just a fancy synonym for "come from".  Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed to find that Salve! is unrelated to salve, and therefore can't be described as being unctuous. 213.122.13.43 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They certainly sound cognate to me. The greeting comes from wishing good health upon someone; the ointment is intended to make you healthier. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, etymonline says salve is from a PIE word for butter. Butter doesn't necessarily make you healthier. 213.122.47.225 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, salve as in ointment is a Germanic word that comes from a Proto-Indo-European word for "fat" (probably not originally "butter" as I don't think that had been invented yet in PIE days). The Latin salve is from a different PIE root, one that means "whole". +Angr 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Latin 'Salve!' = "Be healthy" has a counterpart in the standard greeting in modern Russian, 'Здравствуйте' (usually translated as "Hello" or something similar, but literally meaning "Be healthy"). And come to think of it, "hello/hallo" and "holler" are not very far from "hale", "hail" and "whole". --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello is wikt:holà, which is just "ho there". 213.122.47.225 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so at this stage we have some speculation about "hail from" (thanks, Deor and Marco polo). Anything more concrete than that? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to some random but earnest website plenty of our common phrases have a nautical origin, from the obvious like "all hands on deck" to the less obvious "carry on". Often these phrases are borrowed into ordinary land-bound conversation as a way to be brisk and cheerful, shipmate. I don't see why you can't fathom it. 213.122.47.225 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's what I was after. Thank you.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

'Firing For Effect'
In some wargames and on some warfilms, I have heard this phrase many times, usually by either pilots or artillery commanders. It sort of strikes me as odd, because I have the impression that 'for effect' means 'for show'. Obviously when the pilots are dropping their bombs or doing their strafing runs or whatever, they're not just doing it to put on an airshow. What exactly is the origin of this phrase and why is it used in this way? (On a side note, I have heard 'bombs hit for full effect', which I believe means exactly what it says). --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Artillery would fire a few shots to find the range of a target with forward observers telling the guns how to adjust their aim based on the distance from a target or registration object, called "fire for range". Only when they had all the guns properly aimed would they fire "for effect", to actually accomplish the purpose of the attack. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, come to think of it, it does happen in the main barrage rather than the opening salvo. I see what it means now. Cheers. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Adjusting fire based on feedback from a forward observer before FFE is not a thing of the past, it remains a common field artillery procedure - although FFE from the first round with no adjustment is likely to have a higher effect on the target.  (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a bizarre picture. Is the forward observer getting hit by his own artillery? --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  12:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's supposed to depict him measuring the distance between the target and the actual hit with surveying equipment - but I see your point - It does look like he is thrown backwards by the blast. Field artillery can be notoriously inaccurate, and the FO's are often located close to the target, so it's not entirely risk-free. However, he is much more likely to be hit by fragments than the blast itself.  (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also note that there are other types of fire, besides ranging and effect. For example, "suppression fire" is used to keep the enemy in their trenches or otherwise sheltered, so they can't set up machine gun nests, lay wire, engage in sniper fire, etc.  Then there's the "shock and awe" concept, that you can just scare the enemy off or get them to surrender with a sufficient show.  That type of fire may or may not actually be aimed at the target, while "warning fire" is specifically meant to avoid the target, like the proverbial "shot across the bow" in naval confrontations or "shooting above their heads" for controlling rioters (this is why a basketball player should never join in a riot :-) ). StuRat (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)