Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 August 28

= August 28 =

the phrase "You don't talk about anything"
I've heard the people told me "You don't talk about anything", I wonder what does that mean? I just don't know that metaphor "You don't talk about anything", I just heard that phrase when I ramble about blue lights, red lights, green lights, purple lights without regarding people's annoyance level when I talk. --69.228.146.54 (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not just ask the person making this observation to clarify, to a greater extent, what is meant by it? It sounds like someone is saying that your topics of conversation are not recognized as being valid in some way but the person making such a comment would be the best person to expand upon it if asked. Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In your case, it sounds like it means you don't talk about anything important to them. StuRat (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've heard a similar phrase used on three occasions: when someone is unwilling to talk at all (and usually this is the person who won't tell you what s/he wants, but gets toweringly furious bordering on abusive if you don't magically guess correctly - in other words, setting you up for failure so they can play the martyr); when someone drones on and on about things no reasonable person cares about (usually out of cruel malice or snot-nosed dismissive spite, to show how superior s/he is to others); and when someone replies to questions with grunts and shrugs because s/he thinks telling the truth will get him/her in trouble, not realizing that not telling the truth will get him/her in even more trouble. --NellieBly (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you've met my mother? Snap! μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Latin translation needed
For work in progress at Pantheon of Asturian Kings, can anyone translate from Latin the following inscription? As so often with Latin, it makes some sense to me, but not enough: INCLVSI TENERVM PRAETIOSO MARMORE CORPVS AETERNAM IN SEDE NOMINIS ITHACII - Jmabel &#124; Talk 03:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect that tenerum should be tenuerunt or even the passive in a different person. It is like "e plebnista" form The Omega Glory.  Something like, "they have enclosed in this precious marble the eternal body in the seat (throne, place?) (in) the name of (the) Ithaca(n)."  Literally, and quite ungrammatically, it is "included pl.--they held--by the precious marble--the body (nom)--eternal (acc)--in the seat--of the name ithacan."  It is about as confused as you can get.  You cannot really translate it from standard Latin.  You would have to have an expert in dark ages "Latin". μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tenerum" is simply an adjective describing "corpus", referring either to the general weakness of the flesh, or maybe that this is the grave of a child. It could be mistranscribed, or there are sigla in the inscription that have been left out here..."aeternam in sedem" would seem to make more sense, for example. "Inclusi" seems to be the verb "I have enclosed". So I would suggest "I have placed the tender body of [the person named, or someone from the lineage of] Ithacius in this precious marble, [so that he may reach] the eternal seat". I don't know who "Ithacius" is...is it a spelling of Isaac? Hydatius? A form of Diego? Also, I wouldn't say it's particularly bad "dark ages" (ugh...) Latin, it's just that even classical inscriptions are hard to interpret. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the reference is to the fourth-century bishop Ithacius of Ossonoba mentioned in Priscillianism. Deor (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Emil Hübner notes here (p. 46 if the link doesn't land you on the correct page) that "aeternam positum est pro aeterna", so he concluded that the ablative sede was correct. Fortunato de Selgas (p. 80), on the other hand, interprets the inscrption as "INCLVSIT TENERVM PRAETIOSO MARMORE CORPVS AETERNAM IN SEDEM NOMINIS ITHATII" and records various speculations about the sarcophagus and the identity of its original occupant, including one to the effect that Ithacius may have been the name of the tomb's sculptor. Myself, I can't see that the 3rd-person inclusit clarifies matters much; "I have enclosed a tender body with precious marble in the eternal abode (or 'resting place') of the family (or 'name' or 'fame') of Ithacius" may be the best that one can do. Deor (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does make a lot more sense with tenerum not as a misspelled third-person plural verb! μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. After looking at the above, I don't feel at all bad about having had some difficulty understanding this! I've used some of the above, especially from Deor (whom I credited in an edit summary) in Pantheon of Asturian Kings. If anyone wants to review/edit what I wrote there, that would be welcome. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese help re: File:Af447diag.svg
Hi! I want to put in an image request to make a Portuguese translation of File:Af447diag.svg, but I need to confirm what the following are in Portuguese before I submit the request: Brazilian terms would be preferred over European ones since AF447 was a Rio to Paris flight
 * Exits - Saídas
 * Toilet - Banheiros
 * Recovered (as in recovered a dead body) - recuperado
 * Unrecovered (as in did NOT recover the body) - não recuperado
 * Galley - galera
 * Storage - Armazém

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Update:
 * Commons:Commons:Esplanada - All of the terms except for "galley" are positively correct - the only one in question is galley, and the Brazilian Portuguese term is needed WhisperToMe (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Users answered my questions, so I started Commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Navajo language
The article on "Navajo language" contains a list of metropolitan areas and micropolitan areas where the Navajo language is spoken, with a percentage, in parentheses, following the name of each of the four areas. However, no explanation is given as to what the numbers are percentages OF, so the numbers are entirely meaningless to anyone who reads them. Please clarify! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.208.193 (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Percent of the total population of these places, according to the cited source. I'll clarify in the article. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)