Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 June 5

= June 5 =

on grammatical reference
I am lost. What are the grammatical references that this sentence is to be correct? Or is the sentence incorrect?
 * The children are being very naughty. Mr.Bitpart (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's saying it's incorrect? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "grammatical references"? Anyway, as Bugs says, there is nothing incorrect about this sentence. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be many other definitions or a precise definition on ‘reference grammar’. But what I meant about by the ‘grammatical reference’ or ‘reference grammar’ is the descriptive grammar in morphosyntax that can describe the correctness of a sentence in term of its classes, constituencies, elements, etc.

On the example above or on this example He was being careless, the rests of the sentence are simple and clear, except the word ‘being’. The confusion here is the grammatical conjugation of the verb ‘be’ and its emphasis. So what is the nature of conjugation if it is a verb or verbal? Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a present participle. Continuous and progressive aspects may help. Deor (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is correct in these cases. So what are the explanations, the grammatical references in which the both circumstances can be distinguished, as to a stative verb to conjugate for continues aspect that is otherwise rare? Mr.Bitpart (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of "being + adjective" is common in English to describe certain kinds of behavior. In these cases be is not being used as a stative verb; rather, the whole "being + adjective" phrase is more or less a lexicalized activity-type verb. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that only the imperative form can denote a lexical aspect; a finite form that expresses the temporal sequences (aspect) of meaning (lexical) in present, progressive, and future (in contrary to a specific time as in grammatical aspect).
 * Also, I thought that a verb that denotes action cannot take subject complement. But there are some points in the previous edit, which is of a difficult explanation. Mr.Bitpart (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're a bit confused with your terminology. Imperative is a mood and has nothing to do with aspects (the imperative is what you use for making commands or suggestions, as in "go to the store now"). Lexical aspect, also called aktionsart, refers to the way that the event denoted by a verb (or verb phrase) unfolds over time, and it is not simply a combination of the terms "lexical" and "aspect". There is no "continuous" lexical aspect (continuous/progressive/durative/habitual is a grammatical aspect). And both lexical and grammatical aspect can be expressed regardless of mood (for instance, in English we can have an indicative continuous like "I am eating peas", or an interrogative continuous like "Are you eating peas?"). I don't know what you mean by "subject complement" but verbs denoting actions certainly can, and almost always do, have subjects. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In term of its tense, it is a simple one but I did not get it first. However, according to the www.britishcouncil.org, the reason why the sentences are correct is because the be is used to describe an action and not a state.

Thanks for the inputs.-Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what I said at 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how you do it
How do you say "this is how you do it" in Latin? I guess it should be something like "sic ", but what grammatical conjugation should the verb be in? "To do" is facio, IIRC, but what is the correct conjugation??? I know the words, but very little grammar, unfortunately, as I tried to teach myself Latin back when I was an undergrad but never had time to take Latin classes... Thanks in advance, --Dr Dima (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Simplest possible translation would be "Ita fac". This could be elaborated to taste... AnonMoos (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Or "ita fit" or "sic fit". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify: AnonMoos's translation is imperative "Do thus" (assuming that you are addressing one person), and Adam's two both mean "Let it be done thus". All of them assume that some sort of instructions or demonstration will follow. Is that what you were looking for? Deor (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Adam's two mean "It is done thus". "Let it be done thus" would have fiat rather than fit. +Angr 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I need to have a morning cup of coffee before visiting the ref desks. Deor (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I used an imperative as a simple way to retain a connection with the 2nd. person pronoun and active voice verb in "how you do it". The plural imperative would of course be facite... AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! Sic fit is what I was looking for. --Dr Dima (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Sic facies" ("Thus shalt thou do" - future indicative rather than imperative) is another alternative. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation from Hungarian
This query is about a commemorative plaque on a house where Franz Liszt used to stay in Paris between 1823 and 1878. A photograph of the plaque may be found here on Commons. The plaque contains a quote in Hungarian: Hírhedett zenésze a világnak, Bárhová juss, mindig hű rokon! These are the opening lines of Liszt Ferenchez, by Mihály Vörösmarty, as quoted here on the Hungarian Wikisource. One website I found translates Liszt Ferenchez as "Ode to Liszt", and the two lines as "Renowned musician, known throughout the world, faithful kinsman, wherever you may be!" Is this translation correct? There are also two other words at the bottom of the plaque, Huszár and Szobrász. What do they mean in this context? - Mu (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the picture, and after finding out that szobrász means sculptor, I would say Huszár is the last name of the guy who made the plaque. Rimush (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From the info at Hungarian noun phrase, I deduce that Liszt Ferenchez is the allative of Liszt Ferenc and therefore simply means "To Franz Liszt", with no word for "ode" present. +Angr 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Damning praise
I heard the expression the other day. I looked here, at Wiktionary and at dictionary.com and also tried the Google search "damning praise" and idiom and did not find it. Is it a stock expression? If so, can you tell me what it means? Is it sort of like a "backhanded compliment"—ostensibly praise but couched in a way that it's really intended as an insult?--162.84.129.123 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's usually "damning with faint praise", for which we conveniently have an article. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In religion, "damning praise" can mean improper praise of God, means of worship which are sinful. Something in Amos about drinking to God with wine bought with fines levied against the congregation.


 * I recall faintly also it being used for praise from someone you wouldn't want praise from. If the KKK sincerely praised a politician as being the kind of leader their country needs, that would be damning praise. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'damn with faint praise' article was somewhat helpful. Thanks ever so much.--162.84.129.123 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just kidding, it was very helpful, I was just testing out the expression through an attempt at application:-)--162.84.129.123 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better yet: "Thanks for trying to help. You did the best you could, no doubt." :-)  Marco polo (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhere I recently read a description of someone "praising [someone else] with faint damns", but I can't remember where now. +Angr 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found it: it's in Murder Must Advertise. +Angr 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanse sentence help -- contraction?
あしたの会議に出られなくなっちゃった. ("It seems I won't be able to attend tomorrow's meeting.")

I'm OK with this up to なっちゃった. I'm guessing that this last part is a contraction? Is it something to do with the verb なる? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.87.30 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a very common contraction. The expression is using the modal verb しまう to express regret, and the full un-contracted form would be なってしまった. Another way to contract it would be なっちまった. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Tokyo dialect. Shitesimau→Shichimau→Shichau. Looking at the sample sentence solely, native ja speakers would think it a young female's talk. But males use it too, especially native Tokyoites. Takeshi Kitano often uses it. Itteshimatta (行ってしまった) would be icchatta (行っちゃった) and katteshimatta (買ってしまった) would be kacchatta (買っちゃった). But it's not always expressing regret. Oda Mari (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's written in the article Kansai dialect. See the third paragraph. Oda Mari (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it considered Tokyo dialect? Here in Nagoya where Kanto meets Kansai, everyone uses it — but only the shortest form, 〜ちゃった. ちまった I only read in books, usually set in Tokyo. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Sorry that I cannot provide RS right now. But it's a common knowledge among Japanese. See ja:東京方言 and ja:名古屋弁. Japan has been getting smaller through TV, shinkansen, etc., you know. Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks guys. 81.159.78.44 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

French translation
In French, does "Retour à l'état sauvage" mean "return to the wild state" (as in a being in a condition that is not tamed/domesticated), or does it mean "return to the wilderness"?  Bramble  claw  x   18:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be either - like a lawn that has not been cut or an untended garden, or just a natural wilderness. What is the context? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like the first option is a more likely translation, but, as Adam says, more context is needed to be sure. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping to use it as an eco-tourism company name for schoolwork. If it doesn't work, I could think of another one.  Bramble  claw  x   20:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Add I don't want it sound like tourists are going to become wild, I want it to sound like tourists are "returning" to the wilderness.   Bramble  claw  x   21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. You could also say "l'état naturel" but that would not necessarily be "wilderness". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Assistance is needed from someone who can read Indic script
At wikipedia.org, the native name of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language has been given as follows:


 * বিষ্ণুপ্রিযা় মণিপুরী

The English Wikipedia article Bishnupriya Manipuri language, however, gives the following as the native name:


 * বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী

The Bishnupriya Manipuri interwiki of that article has the following title:


 * বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী

The latter two are identical, safe for the detail that when I copy and paste each one of them at MS Word, the space between the two words in the text copied from the Bishnupriya Manipuri Wikipedia is about twice as wide than it is when copied from the en.wp article. But the text of the Wikipedia main portal link to bpy.wikipedia.org is different from the others in two things. Firstly, the fourth copyable character of the first word is  যা   rather than   য়া   ; and secondly, there's the character   ়   which is absent in the other two cases. I feel I am not knowledgeable enough to report that at meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template. Could anyone corroborate whether there is a mistake, and report it if so? Thanks. --Магьосник (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem appears to be that the first one contains a diacritical mark that is not being attached properly, for some reason; that is, the dot with the outlined circle is not a separate character, and because it is set off like that it looks like there is an extra space. Otherwise everything looks exactly the same to me. I have no knowledge of this language so I can't be of any further help, but the issue is simply typographical. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this could be a spelling error, so I have raised it at meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template. Hopefully, someone who knows the language will come by and say for sure whether this is an error or not.  Astronaut (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It may not be quite clear from what Adam Bishop says that যা় appears to be a (possibly faulty) way of rendering: য়া. The dotted circle is not a character at all: it just shows that the dot (which is the only real bit of that glyph) is to appear underneath the character: taken together with the preceding undotted character it is supposed to represent the dotted য়া. But whether it is legitimate in this language to analyse the character as a base and a diacritic, I don't know.
 * According to Bright & Daniels ("The World's Writing Systems"), the character with a dot is /j/ whereas the one with a dot is /d͡ʒ/, so it would appear that the second and third form is correct. The first form may be a mistake, or it may be an acceptable way of encoding the text which however is not being rendered correctly. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)