Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 April 21

= April 21 =

translat paragraph
Pleas i want to translat the following english paragraph into arabic one to use it in my arabic scientific search... with my best regards

(( HYSPLIT - Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model

HYSPLIT Description

The HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model is a complete system for computing simple air parcel trajectories to complex dispersion and deposition simulations. The intial development was a result of a joint effort between NOAA and Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. Recent upgrades include enhancements provided by a number of different contributors. Some new features include improved advection algorithms, updated stability and dispersion equations, continued improvements to the graphical user interface, and the option to include modules for chemical transformations. Without the additional dispersion modules, Hysplit computes the advection of a single pollutant particle, or simply its trajectory.

The dispersion of a pollutant is calculated by assuming either puff or particle dispersion. In the puff model, puffs expand until they exceed the size of the meteorological grid cell (either horizontally or vertically) and then split into several new puffs, each with it's share of the pollutant mass. In the particle model, a fixed number of particles are advected about the model domain by the mean wind field and spread by a turbulent component. The model's default configuration assumes a 3-dimensional particle distribution (horizontal and vertical).

The model can be run interactively on the Web through the READY system on our site or the code executable and meteorological data can be downloaded to a Windows or Mac PC. The web version has been configured with some limitations to avoid computational saturation of our web server. The registered PC version is complete with no computational restrictions, except that user's must obtain their own meteorological data files. The unregistered version is identical to the registered version except that plume concentrations cannot be calculated with with forecast meteorology data files. The trajectory-only model has no restrictions and forecast or archive trajectories may be computed with either version.)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkab2001 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Learning a sign language or an oral language - which is easier?
This is certainly not the hardest question to answer, yet I need your help. Would a native speaker of Bosnian who speaks English, French and Castilian learn Yugoslav Sign Language faster than spoken Norwegian? I intend to learn either as much as I can using Internet. 92.36.184.89 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I figure it would depend on your personal apptitude for either sign of spoken. Suggest you give each a go for equal time and make your assessment based on both what you prefer and how much you have learnt. Benyoch Don't panic! Don't panic! 13:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)


 * According to the Foreign Services Institute of the Department of State, it would take a 40 year old native English speaker 575-600 hours to learn Norwegian to a 'professional' standard. . To gain 'advanced' standard in British Sign Language is suggested to take 260-300 hours . This evidence would suggest it would be quicker (not necessarily the same as easier) for you to learn sign language. However, you obviously possess a good ability to learn languages (especially Western European languages, and particularly English, with which Norwegian shares many similarities), which may speed your learning. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think sign language would tend to be a bit quicker, since it makes more sense. For example, I'd bet that the sign for "up" involves pointing upward, which is rather intuitive.  There is nothing intuitive about a "u" followed by a "p" meaning "up", you just have to memorize it.  This difference applies to common words, but when you get to complex concepts, like antidisestablishmentarianism, gestures fail.  At that point, many sign languages just resort to spelling out the written word. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know any sign languages, but I thought that, as with a spoken language, the signs were arbitrary symbols that have nothing to do with the concept that's being referenced. I would guess that some correlate with the appropriate motion, just as some words in English (to mew) have to do with their reference, but is that the general tendency?  This touches on that a little.  Falconus p  t   c 19:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sign tends to be more iconic than oral language. This is a problem for historical linguistics, because many of what are the most stable words in oral languages (pronouns, numerals, body parts) tend to be iconic in sign, and are therefore not evidence of any relationship. But most signs are arbitrary, or if they started out iconic that has become obscured over time. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * At least you wouldn't have to worry about your accent with sign language. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't there be regional variations in sign language, just as in a spoken/written language ? StuRat (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There certainly are, though I assume Clarityfiend was referring to a nonnative accent rather than a regional one. But as Kwami points out below, there is such a thing as a nonnative accent in sign languages, for example not animating the face enough (or not animating it in the right way). Angr (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, while there is certainly both arbitrariness and iconicity in sign languages as in spoken languages, there is a great deal more iconicity in sign languages than in spoken languages. That could make learning vocabulary easier. In addition, most sign languages are influenced by language contact with the dominant spoken language of their area, so it may well be easier for a native Bosnian speaker to learn Yugoslav Sign Language than it would be for, say, a native English speaker with no knowledge of any language in the Serbo-Croatian group. I'd say that's two points in favor of YSL being easier for a Bosnian to learn than Norwegian is. However, another issue that must be taken into consideration is availability of learning resources. The OP says he wants to learn via the Internet: I imagine there's a fair amount of material for learning Norwegian available, but how much material is available for learning YSL? If there isn't much, it may turn out that learning Norwegian is easier for reasons having nothing to do with cognitive language-learning ability. Angr (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also the difference in modality. Your brain needs to restructure to process sign efficiently. A bit like perceiving tone if you come from a non-tonal background, but more drastic. For a good accent, you also need to animate your face to a level you're not used to, at least for ASL. (Native signers comment that hearing people sign deadpan, which is unpleasant.) I think learning broken sign is probably easier than a broken oral language – esp. if it's the sign of your own country and contains thousands of words borrowed from an oral language you already speak – but I suspect that in becoming fluent, the change in modality might swamp the benefits of iconicity and loanwords. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sign languages also very often have wildly different syntax from spoken languages. For example, noun incorporation is quite rare in spoken languages – and practically unheard of in European languages – but is extremely common in sign languages. Sign languages also employ agreement in ways that are uncommon in spoken languages, e.g. by having a transitive verb agree in person not only with its subject but also with its object. Angr (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never learned a sign language, but I've been told that learning Norwegian (and presumably other mainland Scandinavian languages) is an unusual experience especially when you are fluent in both English and German (and possibly know French or Latin well) already: Due to the many High and Low German borrowings in Norwegian, you will find that the native basic vocabulary is rather exotic (cognates with English and German have often changed meaning and can be hard to recognise), but the extended vocabulary is easy as pie because it is largely familiar from languages you already know, or transparent derivations. So instead of harder, it gets easier with time! Also, the morphology is simple (no case marking in nouns or person marking in verbs), especially in Bokmål, and the syntax not a big problem, either. My own – admittedly rather limited – experience with written Norwegian (as well as Swedish and Danish) does bear that out.
 * Sign languages, in contrast, have a very unfamiliar structure (from the point of view of spoken languages in general, but especially from the point of view of English or Slavic – ASL is often described as polysynthetic or incorporating), which makes them fascinating to linguists and language enthusiasts, but you should be aware that the grammar isn't trivial and the learning curve probably not exactly steep. It's not just fingerspelling or intuitive gesturing, it's a full-blown language. Learning the signs might be a bit like learning Chinese characters, which tend to have iconic origins but they aren't obvious anymore at all in most cases, due to the stylisation of the forms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (EDIT: Sorry, just noticed Angr raised the same issue as what follows.) Another issue is educational resources. If your Bosnian were fluent enough in English there would be lots of info and instruction on Norwegian available in English, more than for teaching Yugoslav Sign Language to someone.  There's also a fair amount of media in Norwegian, but rather less in Yugoslav Sign Language.  Of course if you were able to study immersively with speakers/signers, it might be different. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. I guess I should have mentioned a fair knowledge of Latin, Florian? I had a very demanding teacher but I didn't think it would matter for this issue. Anyway, it seems that I should first check exactly how much YSL I can learn using the Internet - there are certainly enough resources on the Internet for learning Norwegian. I'll take a glance at websites explaining both and decide what seems best. Is that a good idea? 92.36.152.149 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The main issue of any learning is its objective. If you just learn languages for fun, time does not matter here. You can study any language(s) even for decades only for your personal linguistic curiosity. In this case you can also learn both languages simultaneously. But if you intend actively communicating with the deaf people (for example, you have relatives or friends with hearing problems, or you want to work in this area) it is surely worth learning SL. From the other side if you like Norwegian (or, broadly, Scandinavian) culture, you like the country, its people, etc. or even want to travel/work/live there, it would be useful if not strongly required to study its language. But one more contra for SL is that it is used by a relatively small amount of people (usually less than 1%), it's like learning the language of a small tribe in the jungle of New Guinea or Amazonia but in this case they [jungle] will be of concrete and the "tribe" will be dispersed throughout all your country. Maybe my testimony is not typical but neither I personally nor my acquaintances have ever or very rarely met the deaf people. Of course they are living with us in the cities but I probably should purposely search them to meet and communicate (if I could). P.S. And to add to what was said above. Whether the self-study materials exist at all? I suppose it's more difficult if not impossible to learn SL without a teacher.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Latin translation, please
My limited Latin's too rusty to make much of this. Google Translate made a decent stab at it, but it's still not appropriate for the Saint George Palace article.

These are inscriptions on the two founding stones of a building in Rennes.


 * In nomine Jesu Altissimi, illustrissimus D. Carolus Franciscus of Vieuville episcopus Rhedonensis, harum œdium inchoationi adfuit, benedixit, J. omnibusgue C. eas sponsis habitaturis veram exoptavit pacem. Anno Christi DC M Indict LXX. VIII. IX Kal. Aprilis.


 * (GT: In the name of Jesus, the Most High, the most illustrious D. Charles Francis, Bishop of Vieuville Rhedonensis, œdium of the basics, she blessed, J. omnibusgue C. spouses to live the true hope for peace. In the year of 1000 ° 600 ° 70 ° Indict. 8. 9 April.)


 * Deo optimo maximo favente, Dna Magdalena de la Fayette, natalibus virtutibusgue clarissima, HAS œdes vetustate ruentes in ampliorem formam has fundamentis renovandas singulari zelo Suscepit inchoavitque. Anno Christi DC M ° ° ° Indict LXX. VIII. IX Kal. Aprilis.


 * GT: God most favour, Mrs Magdalena de la Fayette, birth virtutibusgue most of these old œdes falling on a larger scale these foundations has helped renew his singular zeal inchoavitque. In the year of 1000 ° 600 ° 70 ° Indict. 8. 9 April.

Could someone improve the translations for me, please? Thanks! Julia\talk 20:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be "virtutibusque", "ædes". "IX Kal. Aprilis" is actually March 24th... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) In the name of Jesus the Most High, the most illustrious Lord Charles Francois de Vieuville, bishop of Rennes, came at the inception of these houses, and blessed (them), and greatly desired peace for all the spouses of Jesus Christ (who were) about to dwell (in them). 24 March 1678.
 * 2) With God, the greatest and best, favouring it, Lady Madeleine de la Fayette, most famous by births (ancestry?) and virtues, took up and initiated with singular zeal these renovations from the foundations to these houses, (which were) collapsing from (their) great antiquity. 24 March 1678.
 * (There are further amendments that one could make to the transcription - all of the 'oe' beginnings should be 'ae', and all the '-gue' endings should be '-que', for example.)
 * (I'm also not totally sure of my dates; the punctuation and use of 'indict' is insufficiently familiar to me, and the two events commemorated seem to have taken place quite some time apart.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If one assumes that the LXX in the first one both belongs before rather than after "Indict" (for which see Indiction), both dates are 1670, which did indeed have an indiction number of 8. Deor (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you're right. And looking at the article, I see that both stones could well have been laid on the same day in 1670. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is so helpful. Thank you all!  Julia\talk  21:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)