Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 20

= May 20 =

Name in Arabic
Hello. Could somebody please let me know how the name "Joana" would be written in Arabic? Thank you. 95.136.3.2 (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's different to "Joana", but "Joanna" gives both يُوَنّا Yuwannā and يونّا  Yuwannā (the latter is described as used in Arabic translations of the Bible). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that those are exactly the same, except the first one has short vowel markings. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want a transcription of "Joanna" from English into Arabic, جوانا juwānā might be best; this singer's Arabic Wikipedia page uses that name.  ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ   spik ʌp!  22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of apostrophe with verbal noun
Apologies if the subject line gives the wrong impression of my question, which is: would formal written (British) English require an apostrophe after "structures" in the following sentence? Please don't offer recasts of the sentence! And don't worry about other changes of style/tone/register. It's just the question of the apostrope that interests me.

"I do not want to start saving too much to the shared hard drive pending the file structures we need being set up on our behalf."

Thanks. 164.36.38.240 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing no posession associated with the word "structures", I would say no apostrophe is needed. --Thomprod (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not unless the word "structures" is meant to be understood posessively. In this case, it clearly isn't.  If we need file structures, then the inversion of that phrase ("the file structures we need") as no possiveness implied for the word "structures".  In this case, the phrase "the file structures we need" has a missing, but implied, word "that", which  is frequently left out of English in most non-formal settings.  The phrase means "the file structures that we need" or maybe "the file structures which we need" but the connecting term is left out. -- Jayron  32  15:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be grammatically correct, although rather sloppy, to say "the file structures' being set up", with "being" acting as a noun (a gerund) rather than an adverbial participle. But if you separate that with a relative clause it looks extremely sloppy. - file lake  shoe  15:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't even think that is correct. In this case "being set up" appears to be an adjectival phrase to modify "structures" (it is adjectival phrase of the second type mentioned in the article Adjectival phrase).  It answers the question "Which file structures?" Answer: "The ones being set up".  It serves the same purpose as though we had said "Which file structures" Answer: "The red ones".  Structures would only be possessive if "being set up" were meant to be understood as a noun phrase; i.e. it meant "the state of being set up", and such understanding is tortured at best; I can't see anyone understanding the sentence to take that meaning, and if it should, then a different phrasing should be used instead of the current one.  -- Jayron  32  15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting answers already. Thanks!  I must say that I was thinking along the same lines as Filelakeshoe in terms of "being" acting as a gerund.  The test I normally apply is whether a "normal" noun would take a possessive - "I do not want to start saving too much to the shared drive pending my dog’s emergency operation" - but I wasn't satisfied with the comparison and couldn't quite get to the bottom of the question.  I'm not completely convinced by the fact "being set up" is an adjectival phrase.  But I am convinced using an apostrophe would be very contrived, to say the least.164.36.38.240 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's awkward and contrived both with and without an apostrophe. Why not just say "...until the file structures we need have been set up on our behalf"? Finite verbs are good; you don't have to turn everything into a noun. —Angr (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Geeks only, maybe: the AT-sign in Latin@
I have a question for someone who knows how to search (with Google, for instance). Latin@ is currently a redirect to Hispanic and Latino Americans, but I wish to either add a section to that article or write a separate, short article on the use of the at-sign in "latin@". If you're not familiar with this, it's to avoid the grammatical gender inherent in Spanish--it's both "latino" and "latina," because of the typography of the symbol. It's brilliant! The problem is I can't search for it: look what happens in Google. Now I am convinced that scholars have already used this term (I've seen it in print), and I am pretty sure some of them will have written on it--but how do I find results specifically for "latin@" when that makes Google search, apparently, for "latin"? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be better off asking this at the computing desk. I am not absolutely certain, but I suspect that it can't be done with Google. In my experience Google generally ignores all special characters, and this is also stated at http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=134479 86.179.118.185 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, well, hard on the heels of my reply above, I just found that searching for "latin@s" (with quotes) does seem to recognise the @. So, seems I don't really know what I'm talking about... 86.179.118.185 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article "At sign".—Wavelength (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

German-to-English translation
Hy there. I'm hereby asking for some help and insight in a German-to-English translation.

The original sentence in German seems to be the following:
 * Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme in Strömen von Blut und Strömen von Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen, was Bestand hat.

My translation would be:
 * To exercise violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only of this seed may something new emerge, which will remain.

However the given English translation is:
 * The exercise of violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.

First of all I know that translations are inherently a tricky business. To translate the figurative meaning of a sentence is IMHO more important than a word for word translation. However the given translation is IMHO weird: the German original doesn't speak of 'African tribes' at all but of 'rebellious tribes' and 'Ausaat' IMHO doesn't mean 'cleansing' but rather 'seed'. However not being a native English-speaker I'm unsure if the sentence: "Only of this seed may something new emerge, which will remain." makes any sense and if it carries the same weight. I need to know if my translation is indeed better than the given one and if not, why so? Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be something to do with the fact that "rebellious tribes" doesn't quite imply "tribes of rebels", which I guess is what's intended. It depends on when this was published, but nowadays if I heard "rebellious tribes" it would make me think less of the Rwandan Genocide and more of a large, rebellious group of people such as protesters or rioters. The "seed" bit sounds very poetic in English, it might not so much in German, not sure... - file lake  shoe  21:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And if I translate it into "rebel tribes"? Would it be better? Flamarande (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aussaat in the original is a metaphor, so it would probably be best to use a similar metaphor in English, while being careful not to mix it with another one. Maybe some variation of the idiom of "reaping what one sows", e.g. "only by sowing in this way can we reap something permanent". —Angr (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote is from Lothar von Trotha and the tribes in question were Namibian. This would perhaps explain why the (rather weak) translation glosses them as "African" rather than simply translating the word aufständisch. Both translations rely too much on false similarities between German and English words that share an origin but have diverged in meaning. Mit krassem Terrorismus might better be rendered as "With out-and-out terrorism" or "with the stark application of terror"; Grausamkeit is simply "cruelty". Aussaat is an act of sowing as well as seed (as a collective noun). The implication seems to be that the streams of blood and money function as a scattering of seed. I'd render the whole thing as:


 * The exercise of force with the stark application of terror and even cruelty was and is my policy. I exterminate the rebellious tribes with torrents of blood and torrents of money. Only from this scattering of seed can something new emerge, which will endure. Valiantis (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your translation even better. But why not use 'rebel tribes'? Flamarande (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: I would translate vernichte as "annihilate", rather than "destroy". Zerstöre corresponds to "destroy", vernichte is much more emphatic. But "exterminate" is not quite it, either, in my view; that's more like rottete aus in German. Gabbe (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW We have an article about the event - Herero and Namaqua Genocide Roger (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the whole problem: the article uses the given translation which IMHO is of poor quality. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that a better translation would/could be: The exercise of force with the stark application of terror and even cruelty was and is my policy. I annihilate the rebel tribes with torrents of blood and torrents of money. Only from this scattering of seed can something new emerge, which will endure. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)