Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 June 17

= June 17 =

Asking about quantity in English
If I want to know what quantity of fruit someone has picked, I might ask them, "How much fruit did you pick?"

If I want to know what quantity specifically of blueberries they had picked, how do I phrase the question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.42.157 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "How many blueberries did you pick?" Although I can see why you're asking, because if picking blueberries is anything like picking strawberries, where you pick basketfuls, they would probably count the number of baskets than the number of specific blueberries. In any case, when counting berries or baskets, I can also imagine hearing "how much berries" in very informal speech. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You will hear (mostly) uneducated native speakers of English saying things like "how much berries". However, educated speakers (other than professional linguists) consider that usage incorrect.  So, if you are learning English, you should always say "how many berries", or as the case may be, "how many baskets of berries".  Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Or, if one does not know or care how large a basket is, one could ask "What quantity of blueberries did you pick?". Then they can answer in ways such as "Seven baskets", "Fifteen kilos", "Thirty pounds", etc.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In my part of the United States at least "What quantity of blueberries did you pick?" is perfectly understandable and correct, but it would be far more common to hear "How many blueberries did you pick?" expecting any of of the following kinds of answers: "I picked three blueberries." "I picked two cups of blueberries." "I picked all the blueberries."  "I filled one basket."  The list goes on.  If the basket is an unknown size, you could ask "How big is the basket?" Falconus p  t   c 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In UK, and would say exactly the same as Falconus. An interesting question that shows that we do not always think logically about the count/non-count distincion. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

German "beziehungsweise" (bzw.)
I don't understand the usage of this word at all and I was hoping that one of this desk's regular German experts could enlighten me. Take this sentence, for example: "Mit diesem Kabel können Sie Ihren Drucker bzw. Scanner anschließen." Why is bzw. used here where, to my mind, a simple oder ought to suffice? Another example: I heard a station announcer say recently that the line was closed in two places, "zwischen [station name A] und [station name B] bzw. [station name C] und [station name D]". Why is bzw. used here where und zwischen would mean exactly the same thing? Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz talk 08:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * beziehungsweise is the equivalent of English respectively. I see the use of bzw. instead of oder or und as more of a style question. English is actually even more redundant, using both or and respectively (againg, dependent on style): "With this cable you can connect your printer or scanner, respectively". I can't think of a nice translation for the second example, but "zwischen Karlsplatz und Volkstheater bzw. zwischen Keplerplatz und Reumannplatz" is clearer than "zwischen Karlsplatz und Volkstheater und zwischen Keplerplatz und Reumannplatz", imo. Rimush (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I see what you mean about the second example, but as for the first, I don't see the need for that "respectively" in English.  ""With this cable you can connect your printer or scanner" says it all (actually, a better translation would be "You can use this cable to connect your printer or scanner"). --Viennese Waltz talk 10:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As an English native speaker I have to agree that in the printer/scanner sentence, "respectively" is borderline incorrect and most native speakers wouldn't produce such a phrase. But Rimush's point is valid--there are many instances where respectively is used by native speakers in a superfluous manner.--达伟 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Beziehungsweise is usually translated as "respectively", but it can also mean things like "as the case may be" or "whichever applies". In the first case above, oder would have worked too, but beziehungsweise gives an added sense of "whichever is more relevant for you".  Marco polo (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that beziehungsweise means "respectively" is a dangerous piece of misinformation that needs to be stamped out. This false belief has led many Germans who translate into English to produce such monstrosities as "With this cable you can connect your printer resp. scanner". At best, beziehungsweise can sometimes mean "and ... respectively" (i.e. A bzw. B can be translated A and B, respectively), but usually it can be translated or with a flavor of "as the case may be" added. When I'm translating out of German, I translate bzw. as "or" 95% of the time and as "and" the remaining 5% of the time. +Angr 16:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be mistaking English respectively for Romanian respectiv, then. You can translate German beziehungsweise as Romanian respectiv 95% of the time, and the usage of English respectively seems pretty close to the Romanian one. It seems that it doesn't work as a three-way comparison, though. Rimush (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can use respectiv as a conjunction - if you can say A respectiv B to mean "A and B respectively" or "A and/or B" or "A or B, as the case may be" - then its use isn't close to that of English respectively. +Angr 06:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a case of (somewhat) false friends. Rimush (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I love Angr's "dangerous piece of misinformation that needs to be stamped out". He is right of course. The best you can do keep the "respectively", "as the case may be" or "whichever applies" at the back of your head and then observe the bzw. in the wild for a while. But you need to observe usage skeptically, because while it can be used well by good writers, it can be used as a cheap filler by bad ones. I think the basic idea is that bzw. is a placeholder for an argument of mutatis mutandis which the writer doesn't make assuming the reader already understands. It is saying "ok, you know what I mean, let's not waste your and my time, you rearrange the argument accordingly and get this other configuration to which this other thing applies". This works really well if the author is making an intelligent argument and the reader is smart enough to follow, but it is really awful when used by authors who are just mimicking intelligence, thinking that throwing in a gratuitous bzw. will make them look smarter. I have seen cringeable use of bzw. in academic writing, the sort of cargo cult intelligentsia you get in volumes of essays driven by "publish or perish" where poeple try to look as erudite as they can at a minimal investment of brains. I think the most faithful translation of bzw. you could give in English would be something like "and/or, mutatis mutandis," -- except that you cannot give this, of course, because it makes you sound impossibly pompous even the first time you use it, while you can use bzw. without flinching at least three times on a page :) --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright, I was wrong, I got the red card, let it be already - it's not like I'm a linguist or anything :P Rimush (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There's word in Polish which appears to fulfill precisely the same role as German bzw. This is 'wzgl. (względnie).' (I feel pretty sure that there is a 100% one-to-one conceptual mapping relation between this and the German counterpart.) The original meaning of this Polish word is relatively but I guarantee you that nobody means it when applied similarly to above quoted German examples. The way I would represent it in English would be something along the lines: eventually, possibly, alternatively. I would have to give it some time to rethink it, but I can't be too wrong. – 6birc (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) to denote an acceptable alternative that is not imposed on the audience as absolute, but relative to some extent upon the listener, granting him an extent of liberty in own judgement (in other words, suggesting an intentional margin of interpretative freedom and uncertainty)As in: if needed, if necessary, if required, if you will, as it fits, accordingly. – 6birc (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given it a second thought, I realised that respectively happens to be a great compromise between literal and conceptual translation for the Polish one. Respective Latin and Polish morphems (respectively lexems): -spect- and -gląd-, are 100% one and the same meaning. Worth knowing noting: in Polish, word wzgl. in these applications can be replaced by też, tudzież (also, too) without any loss of meaning. All of these can be optionally accompanied by the Polish counterpart for or, so they aren't strictly replacement to the latter. Same must be in German. I love how these two languages seem more similar to each other than German to other Germanic languages such as English. Another idea for translation: otherwise (in the sense of a more elaborate, "extended or"). Another good one: or ... if you will.  I feel that the original point of employing wzgl. was: to offer a more elaborate, "extended" variant for or, similarwise to extending the word to by adding in order in front of it (to help it stand out), [I forgot—will complete this one when I recall.]
 * To me, the Polish word względnie introduces a an option that is second in preference to the first one. Consider these examples:
 * Możesz pojechać pociągiem albo autobusem. "You can take a train or a bus." – the two option are equally good, there's no preference for either one.
 * Możesz pojechać pociągiem, względnie autobusem. "You can take a train or (if that doesn't work) a bus." – the train is your first choice, the bus is second best. You could substitute it with ewentualnie (which means "possibly", not "eventually").
 * I don't know if it works the same way in German. — Kpalion(talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Transcription/Transliteration/Translation Query
I am working on a manuscript from 1724 (written in Latin) that includes three words written with a Greek alphabet. Unfortunately, the typeface is in italics, making even transcription a pretty big problem. I believe these are grammatical terms. Any help as to which of the transcriptions is more likely to be a word, what that word might be transliterated as, and what said word means in contemporary English would be appreciated. Thanks. Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) μυημουικου or μυημουιχου
 * 2) αμαζτημα or αμαςτημα
 * 3) παζοζαμχ or παςοςαμχ or παζοζαμκ or παςοςαμκ
 * The words in number 3 aren't even possible Greek words, as Greek words can never end in μχ or μκ. The glyph ς only appears at the ends of words, so the options with ς in the middle of a word aren't possible either. Any chance of uploading a scan of the words in question? +Angr 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [[File:GreekTranscription1724Rucellai.png]]

Perhaps this will help. Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so we guessed correctly μνημονικὸν and ἁμάρτημα. The third word is παρόραμα, I don't know what it could mean. —Emil J. 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The context (or what I can make of it anyway) suggests that these words could be examples from the object language rather than grammatical terms, which means that the "sin" is not a problem.—Emil J. 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) #1 is probably a form of the adjective μνημονικός (mnēmonikós); your spelling with -ου would make it gen. sg. masc. or neut. μνημονικοῦ (mnēmonikou), but seeing that you systematically confuse υ with ν, it could also be nom.sg.neut. μνημονικόν (mnēmonikón).—Emil J. 16:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * #2 could be ἁμάρτημα since there are glyphs of ρ where the tail loops under in a way that could look like ζ or a closed ς. However, the word means "sin"; it's not a grammatical term. Perhaps #3 therefore begins παρορα-. +Angr 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and perhaps ends in -μη? That does not make any word I could recognize, though.—Emil J. 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm liking mnemonikon and amarthma. It will change my translation substantially, but i think it makes some sense... only the last one to go then? Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The transliteration is hamártēma.—Emil J. 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the last one is παρόραμα meaning a negligence or omission. Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is μνημονικόν, αμάρτημα and παρόραμα, the latter meaning erratum, omission. Constantine  ✍  17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn'?
My wife was reading A Caribbean Mystery by Agatha Christie the other day, and she asked me why in a few places is spelled out as  (with an apostrophe at the end). I had no idea, never having seen that spelling before. Does anyone else know?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 17:55 (UTC)
 * Is this "damn" in its adjectival/adverbial usage? If so, it's probably to mark that it's a contraction of "damned". Algebraist 18:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's the case. Thanks for the answer; I'll post a note here after checking the book if the usage turns out to not be adjectival/adverbial.  By the by, why contract "damned" this way?  Is this a dialectal thing?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 18:19 (UTC)
 * I think people very often pronounce damned as [dæm], or, if you prefer, use damn as an adjective as well as a verb. Probably Agatha Christie simply wanted to show the pronunciation [dæm] rather than [dæmd] while recognizing that damn isn't an adjective. So she added an apostrophe to show that she knew the word was really damned but that the speaker pronounced it [dæm]. +Angr 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Angr. This makes sense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 20:55 (UTC)
 * Or as an abbreviation of "damnation". Astronaut (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Feitknechtit
I found this term (it's a mineral) in the German Wikipedia, but I can't find its English equivalent. Is it the same? Moreover, what's its etymology? --151.51.22.137 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Feitknechtite, named for Walter Feitknecht, professor of chemistry, University of Bern. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Declensions of "just"
How exactly does one inflect the adjective just?

According to Wiktionary, it is not considered uncomparable. To wit, one may say less just and least just. But what about upward comparison? To me, juster and justest don't sound quite right; thus, I figured it was probably an archaic past participle —inflecting as more just and most just.

A quick check of several dictionaries, however, revealed that the word did not come to us as a past participle. Is wiktionary wrong, is just an absolute adjective like equal or unique? Pine (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be more just and most just. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps a little archaic now, but search Google for "with a juster and "in a juster" and you'll turn up plenty of hits, mainly from the 19th century and early 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary records actual usage (rather than what some consider "proper"), so if the comparative is used (other than just by mistake or in blogs etc), it should be recorded there.   D b f i r s   06:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)