Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 April 20

= April 20 =

Latin translation


Would anyone like to attempt an English translation of this plaque in Latin for the Commons? There is a transcription of the text here. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a very good transcription, unfortunately. Here is what I make of it:
 * F. G. Abrettanus Podiochericus huius sacri coenobii monacus capellam hanc, deiparae virgini, sub titulo sancti benedicti, dicatam, suis sumptibus ab ipsis fundamentis, substruxit: et, quo potuit cultu, et elegantia, toto vitae curriculo exornavit. Consimilique cura, et studio, vives adhuc, sed pia pendulae mortis expectatione permotus, sibi et amantissimo ex sorore nepoti fratri francisco de hautpoul praemortuo, sepulcrum hoc grato, et libenti animo, praeparavit. Aetatis sue anno quinquagesimo secundo: partae vero nostrae salutis, millesimo sexentesimo trigesimo tertio.
 * Which says "Brother Guillaume de Brettes de Puichéric, a monk of this holy monastery, built this chapel, dedicated to the God-bearing virgin, in the name of St. Benedict, at his own expense from the very beginning: and, as far as he was able, he maintained it with care and taste for the whole course of his life. And with similar concern and devotion, while he was still alive, but moved by the pious expectation of death weighing upon him, with a gracious and cheerful mind he prepared this sepulchre for himself and for his most beloved nephew from his sister, Brother François de Hautpoul, who had predeceased him. In his fifty-second year, and in the year of our salvation 1633." Adam Bishop (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Brilliant – thanks very much. I've corrected the transcription and added your translation to the file description page. Incidentally, I wonder if "François de Hautpoul" is the same person as François d'Hautpoul (fl. ca. 1700) whom the disambiguation page "Hautpoul" says is an alleged Grand Master of the Priory of Sion? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, probably not, because "Priory of Sion" says François d'Hautpoul lived from 1703 to 1726. Perhaps a relative, though. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Could "sancti benedicti" be "the blessed saint" instead of "Saint Benedict"? The plaque appears in what was once Saint-Papoul Cathedral which is dedicated to Saint Papulus, not Saint Benedict. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say that "Sancti Benedicti" is definitely "of Saint Benedict"; "sancti beati" would be "of the blessed saint" in this era, I think. Does the plaque appear in a side-chapel of the cathedral? The inscription doesn't mention the cathedral at all, only the chapel. As for the Priory of Sion claim, it should be noted that the original promoter of that list recanted the whole thing when challenged by an investigative judge; the Priory of Sion is an opportunistic fiction. However, the dates that that article gives for François d'Hautpoul are those of his fictive tenure as Grand Master, not his entire life; so he could have been born early enough to be the son of the nephew named on this plaque. I have not been able to find a reliable genealogy of the Hautpoul family. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was wondering that about François d'Hautpoul as well but the dates didn't seem to match. As for "sancti benedicti", it's definitely St. Benedict, because Saint-Papoul Cathedral was originally a Benedictine abbey (according to fr:Abbaye de Saint-Papoul). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, that solves the "Sancti Benedicti" point, then. Thanks. The d'Hautpoul named on the plaque cannot have been the alleged Grand Master since the plaque, dated 1633, says Guillaume's nephew de Hautpoul predeceased him. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a free translation into modern English, based on the translations above:

Here lies some guy - I knows not why. But even if I'd studied Latin, I'd still not know what ailment had him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.94.248 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What appears to be strange English
I'm curious about some sentence constructions that I've recently seen on Wikipedia. All of these are taken from Liverpool John Lennon Airport but there are examples all over.

The first sentence is "In June 2010 Vancouver Airport Services announced that they reached an agreement with The Peel Group to acquire 65% share in their airports including Liverpool Airport." Shouldn't that read "In June 2010 Vancouver Airport Services announced that they had reached an agreement with The Peel Group to acquire a 65% share in their airports, which includes Liverpool Airport."?

The second is "This includes, new terminal buildings as well as the introduction of permanent long-haul services." The use of the comma would seem to me to indicate a list is upcoming, but it isn't there. Shouldn't the comma be dropped?

The third is "Yellow Submarine, a sculpture previously displayed in Liverpool, now outside airport entrance". That is a line from the see also section but should that not be "Yellow Submarine, a sculpture previously displayed in Liverpool, now outside the airport entrance"?

The last one is the one that bothers me most of all because it is the most common. It seems to me that editors on Wikipedia drop "the" a lot (confirmation bias). Is there some reason that "the" should be dropped that is not explained in English articles? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. It's just poor English. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "65% share in their airports including Liverpool Airport" is fine (a comma before "including" would be optional), it emphasises Liverpool Airport, which may have been a matter of contention, whereas "which includes Liverpool Airport" brackets it off as less important.
 * "...announced that they reached..." would be correct if reaching that agreement was a regular thing they did, or if they reached the agreement at the same time as they were speaking, but if they're referring to something they had already completed, which appears the most likely case, the past perfect tense is definitely called for.
 * Dropping "the" is a feature of writing in an informal/note-taking style, where you leave out unnecessary words, but using an article is more standard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the first one is preferable to your proposed alternative. Personally, I'd include your proposed 'a', but leave 'including', as it seems that it's the airports, not the share, that include Liverpool. In the other two cases, you are correct. The intrusive comma is extremely widespread, and in my view harms comprehension. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But we do need to add a comma before "including". Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of CambridgeBayWeather's proposed changes, except his proposed replacement of "including" with "which includes". In that case, though, I agree that we need a comma before "including". He is correct that errors like these are all too common. Sadly, not all contributors to Wikipedia have a good command of written English.  In some cases, this is because they are not native speakers of English.  In other cases, they may never have paid attention to conventions of punctuation, spelling, or grammar.  Marco polo (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "including" vs. "which includes" is a national variant: the first is British English, while the second is Canadian English. (To me the first sounds stilted and clumsy; I suspect an Englishman would feel the opposite.) The omission of the "the" is wrong but common among native speakers of Slavic languages. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there really a national preference? Both are used in British English, but in different situations with marginally different meanings.  I would put (including Liverpool Airport) or (these include Liverpool Airport) in parentheses since it is a clarification rather than introducing new information, but this might be a personal preference rather than a nation one.    D b f i r s   08:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Is there any particular reason why "the" should be dropped so often, especially in articles that would normally have been edited by people who have English as their first language? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certain abbreviated forms of English, such as headlinese, regularly drop the and the verb to be: "Yellow Submarine sculpture now outside airport entrance". I do the same when I'm taking quick notes. The correction you made is appropriate for the more polished style we try to have here. Lesgles (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Foperies or ſoperies
Is anyone familiar (1) with usages of either term, and (2) how to spell the singular form of whichever with which you are familiar? I'm reading a 1797 edition (not sure where it was printed) of a book originally published in the late 17th century in Scotland, and I'm not sure which is the correct reading. The author is a Presbyterian, condemning the English influence on the Church of Scotland during the later Stuarts:"...and of proteſtant doctrine too, and without the monkey-tricks, and montebank ſhows, and foperies of Engliſh popiſh ceremonies and liturgical ſervices: What would they be at!"It looks like "foperies" in the printing, but I suppose that switching ſ and f would be an easy mistake. Neither one is in OED, and I've vainly looked there for sopery, soperie, fopery, and foperie. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly "fopperies", things associated with a fop, or that a fop would do... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose it could be Poperies, could it? ("(Usually derogatory, Christianity) The teachings, practices and accoutrements of the Roman Catholic Church.") It would seem to fit with the other sentiments expressed in your quotation. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with AnonMoos. The repetition of words with the prefix pop- in "poperies of English popish ceremonies ..." seems like an unlikely construction. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Foperies is a spelling that seems to have been in use at that time e.g., note that the 'f' is clearly distinguished from the 's' in this text by the latter having no cross on the right of the character. Mikenorton (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not "poperies"; this author consistently uses "papistical", "popery", etc. [always lowercased], but never "poperies"; the spacing of the letters is too small for it to have been a broken "P" piece of type. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A quote from the source that I linked to above - "more useful in society than twenty cardinals with all there(sic) scarlet, and tricked out in all the foperies of scholastic finery" from The Miscellaneous Works of Dr. Goldsmith, very similar in style. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's "fopperies", a fairly common charge against Roman Catholic services at the time, especially by Scots Protestants of the time who prided themselves on their plainness. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'll take Popery for 100, Alex." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Open Syllables
What is the longest English word that consists entirely of open syllables? And is a syllable that begins with an affricate open? Inter change  able  16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In English, it's somewhat doubtful whether a stressed "short" or "checked" vowel (i.e. [ɪ ʊ ʌ ɛ æ ɒ]) followed by a consonant (which is in turn followed by another vowel) can truly be considered part of an "open" syllable. You would have to make your position on this issue clear before successive open syllables could be counted... AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just consider a short vowel part of the preceding syllable. Inter  change  able  00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? Of course in a word like "apple" the [æ] vowel is going to be part of the first syllable.  The real question is whether the [p] consonant belongs to the first syllable, the second syllable, or both syllables simultaneously (as is possible in some autosegmental-like theories).  Only in the second of the three alternative theories is [æ] in an open syllable.  Respected linguists have differed on this issue... AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be hard to define what an open syllable is in English. Which syllable is the s of mystic in? — kwami (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that the word applicability could have 100% open syllables, or just 17%, depending on definition? --Theurgist (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the main alternatives are 100% open or 83% open, depending whether -LIC- and -BIL- (i.e. sounds surrounding the stressed vowels) are considered syllable units or not. I don't really see how you could drive the percentage any lower based on the usual pronunciation ([əplɪkəbɪlɪti]).  Some linguists have claimed that describing English sound distributions is simplest if it is posited that stressed "short" or "checked" vowels [ɪ ʊ ʌ ɛ æ ɒ] never occur at the end of a syllable, except in certain pure interjections ("yeah", "uh-oh" etc.).  AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess there's no hope of finding an answer, then. Inter  change  able  18:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If can you tell us what you consider qualifies as an "open syllable" in English, then someone might be able to tell you what the longest word made up of them is under your particular chosen definition. However, there is not really a universally-accepted consensus on which syllables are open in English... AnonMoos (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)