Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 November 8

= November 8 =

Pensions, nominations, mutations, congés, etc
Can someone please translate the section about Teuruarii IV titled "Pensions, nominations, mutations, congés, etc."? Is he spoken of as if he still was alive? www.etatcivil.gov.pf/afficher_pdf.php?id_doc=/srv/www/htdocs/etatcivil/donnes/jopf//1934/JOPF_1934_page_00292.pdf--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like he was still alive:
 * By decision no. 426 of June 27 1934.
 * Mr. Teuruarii IV Epatiana, former king of Ruruti and chief of the district of Moerai, is named honorary chief of the island of Rurutu.
 * Mr. Roo Faatauira a Teuruarii is named chief of the district of Moerai, replacing his father Teuruarii Epatiana.
 * He will receive with this title an annual allowance of 720 francs ... [legal phrase I can't translate]--Cam (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The last bit is "exclusive de toute indemnité", i.e. "not including any compensation" (it doesn't say compensation for what, however). --Xuxl (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seeems to be the opposite. In my Petit Robert (2004), exclusif de: "qui exclut comme incompatible". The meaning should be: "he will receive an annual allowance, but it excludes any kind of compensation." — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The last he refers to Roo Faatauira, right?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Spanish
Let say: "ellos nunca nos han escrito". Is it in the correct order? I mean could it be like: "ellos nos nunca han escrito"? I know nunca and nos must go before the verb but how do I know which one between nunca or nos suppose to be first in order?174.20.101.190 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ellos nunca nos han escrito." The nos is a clitic that needs to stay next to the verb. Lesgles (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A follow up question from a guy who's forgotten most of his Spanish: Should the ellos really be there? Does it make a difference? It seems to me that it is inferred by the declination of the other words. Or is this a European/American difference, where the (or some) American varieties use pronouns that Castellanos would consider superfluous? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on the context. It's usually not necessary, but it might appear to avoid ambiguity or for emphasis, for example, when you switch subjects: "Yo les escribo cada mes, pero ellos nunca nos han escrito". Lesgles (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Greek grammar
Hi, does anyone know enough Greek to tell me if Ancient_Greek_grammar_%28tables%29 is wrong? According to various resources, it looks like the first two entries of the pluperfect active are wrong, ie. the 1s and 2s.

Also, while I'm on the subject, I recently came across a "second future" for Biblical/Classical Greek, but my two textbooks (Cambridge Classical by JACT, and Elements of NT Greek by Duff) don't mention it, or at least not that I can find. My Bib Gk PC app (The Word) recognises a second future for ἀνοίγω, "to open", but I can't confirm even the existence of such a tense. For example, Matt 7:7 has the word ἀνοιγήσεται, parsed as "Second future passive indicative". Does anyone know what this second future is, and how many verbs have a second future? IBE (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Plpf. Act. Ind. 1st -κειν and 2nd -κεις would be more Koine Greek. -κη and -κης would be more Attic Greek.


 * Smyth covers the "second" tenses (along with second aorists, of which you may have heard) at §361 and §554. The second future works like a second aorist:  sometimes a change in meaning, sometimes no change in meaning, sometimes intransitive use--consult your lexicon for the meaning; if it's not listed in your lexicon, you can probably just assume it has the normal meaning, but use your judgement.  I'm not sure how many verbs have a second future, but it is rare. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about the Koine - I just checked my book (Duff) again, and it turns out I was wrong - I don't know what I was thinking, but it has the Koine form, so maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Thanks for the reading suggestion of Smyth also. IBE (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

a can of Spauldings
What is Spauldings in the following passage? Thanks in advance.

He had a view--and all the noise--of hectic Harvard Square. But Jason didn't mind. He was actually in a buoyant mood, since there was still enough time left to stroll to Soldier's Field and find a pickup game of tennis. Already dressed in white, he merely grabbed his Wilson and a can of Spauldings.--Erich Segal, The Class, p.23.118.5.220.187 (talk)Nobuhiko —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say it's a can of misspelt tennis balls: see Spalding (sports equipment). --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Another victim of knock-offs. He probably wore Nikeys too. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And maybe used a Willsun racket. Is "Spaulding" actually the spelling used in Segal's book? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect a play on words. Wasn't Michael Jackson famous for grabbing his Wilson in a bunch of music videos?  Not sure if he ever grabbed Spaulding's can, though.


 * Is "Wilson" a hypercorrection of "willy"? And I wonder what these two Willy Wilsons would make of that. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sign on, Sign in, log on, log in, signon, etc.
I have been looking at the various terms used for signing on to a computer (or web page or application). We have "Sign on", "Sign in", "log in", and, "log on". The latter seems to be ambiguous because it can also be used to describe visiting a web page without sign-on. Then you have the one word variants; logon, login, signon, signin. The last of these seems to be rare, but here "logon" seems to have lost the ambiguity and refer to signing on to a computer. Also the hyphenated variants seem to be common: log-on, log-in, sign-on, sign-in. It seems that preferences have changed; back in the days before PCs everyone would login whereas now people sign-on. In some contexts "signon/sign on" is almost ubiquitous, for example you have "single signon" not "single login" (but decades ago "shared login" was used for the same thing). Are my interpretations correct, and what is the preferred usage? -- Q Chris (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sign in and Sign on have broader definitions outside of computing: When I put my name on a piece of paper to register my attendance at an event, it is called a "sign in". When I join a social movement, for example, I "sign on" for it.  "Log in" is verb usually meaning to personally identify yourself to a computer or network program, while "Login" is a noun for the identifier so used.  Log on and Logon are, I believe, in free variation with log in and login, lesser used but meaning essentially the same thing.  Sign in and sign on are also, in computing contexts, used in free variation as well, but unlike the log examples, the sign examples have a broader related set of definitions that apply outside of computing.  -- Jayron  32  14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The ambiguity does cause confusion. While I was a student I worked on my university's tech support desk. At the beginning of one academic year (2004?), we sent a letter to all new students giving their username / password and instructions along the lines of "log in to [address] and click the 'my courses' button in the top right hand corner of the page". Even with that context, I had to take quite a lot of calls from students who were confused that the page only had a login box and no 'my courses' button. The next year, the letter was changed to say "log in to [address] with your username and password...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.108.42.46 (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As you're kind of hinting at, the flaw in the original instructions was of trying to combine two instructions into one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the people who talk most about logging on to a web page are the people who least understand it, and don't realise that it's generally not what one does. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

French Court Translation
Attendu que Rooteatauira á Teuruarii a interjeté appel d'un jugement prononcé contre lui le 7 avril 1923 à Rurutu, en audience foraine, par le magistrat désigné pour aller rendre la justice dans l'archipel des îles Tubuaï, et qui l'a condamné á deux ans d'emprisonnement et 50 francs d' amende pour soustraction frauduleuse;

'''Attendu qu'il fait plaider que les tribunaux français sont incompétents pour connaître de la poursuite dont il est l'objet, parce que d'une part, la prise de possession de l'île Rurutu, dont il est originaire, non sanctionnée par le roi de Rurutu, n'a pas été ratifiée par les chambres, d'ou il suit que le régime du protectorat, établi sur Rurutu le 27 mars 1889, subsisterait seul avec ses conséquences, et parce que d'autre part, l'organisation judiciaire française ne comporte pas de justice de paix de Rurutu ; ''' Attendu qu'une telle argumentation tire une importance particulière du fait que le prévenu n'est autre que le fils d'Epatiana Teuruarii IV, ex-roi de Rurutu ;

Sur la compétence:

Attendu que l'île Rurutu a été proclamée territoire français par le Gouverneur de la colonie le 25 août 1900 et s'est trouvée ainsi rattachée au ressort des tribunaux de la colonie ; que les pouvoirs exceptionnels alors donnés à cet effet au chef de la colonie par le gouvernement de la République française échappent à tous commentaires, et que le rôle des cours et tribunaux consiste à appliquer les lois et décrets sans en discuter la portée politique ;

Attendu que c'est à tort que Rooteatauira a Teuruarii prétend que pour être définitive, l'annexion de Rurutu aurait dû être ratifiée par les chambres ; que, si l'article 8 de la loi constitutionnelle du 16 juillet 1875 dispose que nulle adjonction de territoire ne peut avoir heu qu'en vertu d'une loi, par contre, aucun délai n'est imparti aux pouvoirs publics pour provoquer le vote d'une telle loi ; que, dès lors, l'île Rurutu, occupée le 25 août 1900 par les troupes françaises et devenue possession française, est soumise à nos lois;

Mais attendu que, fidèle aux engagements pris par lui dans l'acte de protectorat du 27 mars 1889 et respectueux des lois et coutumes de Rurutu — comme de celles des indigènes de ses autres colonies, — le gouvernement français fit dresser un code spécial de ces lois pour Rurutu et Rimatara (1905) et maintint en fonctions les grands juges et juges indigènes de l' île, choisis par la population, étant bien entendu, conformément à une clause de l' acte de protectorat, qu'il administrerait lui-même la justice à l'égard des français et des étrangers ;

'Attendu que l'arrêté du 9 juin 1917 (Journal Officiel Océanie, 1917, p. 242), au chapitre «des étrangers», attribue compétence aux tribunaux français, lorsqu'une infraction aux lois indigènes de Rurutu est commise par un étranger ou par un indigène non protégé français; d'on il suit a contrario'' que les tribunaux français sont également compétents pour une infraction de ce genre commise au préjudice d'un étranger, en l'espéce un chinois non soumis au status indigéne; ''' Attendu que s'il est exact que l;organisation judiciare française de la colonie ne comporte pas de justice de paix de Rurutu, l'art. 12 du décret du 8 octobre 1890 (Bull, officiel Océanie, 1890, p. 563), n'en prévoit pas moins l'envoi d'un juge spécial á la nomination du Gouverneur, pour aller tenir des aundiences foraines dans les îles de l'archipel des Tubuaï et dans celle de Rapa; qu'aux termes de l'art. 1er in fine du décret du 17 février 1891, promulgué du 7 juillet 1891 (Bull, officiel Océanie 1891, p. 1894), le ressort de la justice de paix des Tubuaï comprend toutes les îles de cet archipel et notamment l'île de Rapa; qu'en effect l'archipel des Tubuaï est constitué par cinq îles qui sont: Raivavae, Tubuaï, Rurutu, Rimatara et Maria, ainsi qu'il appert de la carte n° 5037 du service hydrographique de la marine et de l'annuaire des Etablissements français de l'Océanie (année 1917, p. 34), édité par le gouvernement de la colonie;

Attendu qu'aux termes de l'art. 13 du décret du 9 juilllet 1890 et de l'art. 1er du décret du 1er juillet 1880 (promulgué par arrété du 5 févr, 1881, Bull. officiel Océanie, 1881, p. 43), auquel il se rétére, le juge spécial des Tubuaï connaît en premier ressourt des affaires correctionnelles;

Sur la loi applicable

Attendu que le défendeur a soutenu á l'audience qu'au cas où le tribunal supérieur de déclarerait compétent, il aurait á appliquer la loi indigéne;

Attendu que, bien que l'arrêté du 9 juin 1917 sus-visé laisse implicitement prévoir que le tribunal français statue d'aprés la loi indigéne de Rurutu, lorsqu;il est compétent, l'article 3 du décret du 19 août 1869 conserve toute sa force, et que, d'après ce texte, en matière de police correctionnellle, les tribunaux de Etablissements français de l'Océanie et des Etats du protectorat appliquent la loi français, sous la réserve des dispositions y contennues; qu'aucune mesure spéciale n'y était évidemment prévue pour Rurutu, annexée posterieurement;

Au found:

'''Attendu qu'il résulte des pièces de l'information et des débats contre Rooteatuaira a Teuruarii d'avoir à Moerai (île de Rurutu), le 13 février 1921, ensemble et de concert avec Tinorrua a Hurahtia, frauduleusement soustrait diverses marchandises au préjudice de Sum-You, délit prévu et puni par les art. 378 et 401 du Code pénal; ''' Par ces motifs, Dit que c'est á bon droit que le juge spécial de l'archipel des îles Tubuaï a statué sur les poursuites;

Et confirme le jugement dont es appel.

MM Charrier, président; Sigwalth substitut. - Me Siggonne,

I don't expect anyone to translate this but can someone translate the two bolded passages and explain to me (summarize it). Like what was Rooteatuaira about French law vs native law, and did the French say that they did allow the use of native law but not in this case because the victim was Chinese?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rooteatuaira, the ex-King's son, is appealing against his 50 franc fine and 2 year prison sentence for embezzlement. He argues: (bolded passage)


 * ... that the French courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the case in which he is the defendant, because for one thing, the annexation of the island of Rurutu, of which he is a native, was not sanctioned by the King of Rurutu and has not been ratified by Parliament, and it follows that Rurutu’s protectorate status, established on 27 March 1889, would only exist as a consequence [of such ratification]; and, for another thing, the French judicial apparatus does not include a Justice of the Peace for Rurutu.


 * The court rejects his arguments. It states that the law sets no time limit for ratification by Parliament, so the annexation is valid.  It tackles the point about the Justice of the Peace by pointing out there is an accepted, locally appointed native judiciary.


 * Whereas the decree of 9 June 1917 (Journal Official Oceania, 1917, p. 242) in the chapter "Foreigners" confers jurisdiction to French courts when a violation of the native law of Rurutu is committed by a foreigner or by an unprotected French native, it follows a contrario that French courts also have jurisdiction over an offence of this kind committed against a foreigner, in this case a Chinese person who does not have the status of a native


 * The court says that despite the lack of a Justice of the Peace for Rurutu, there's nothing in the legislation stopping the governor appointing a special judge for Tubuai, and the remit of the Justice of the Peace for Tubuai includes Rurutu. It points out that any primacy of local law is effectively trumped by Article 3 of the decree of 19 August 1869, which says that French law applies to all colonies and protectorates unless special provisions say otherwise, and that for Rurutu (annexed later) there are no such provisions.


 * Whereas it follows from the pieces of information and arguments against Rooteatuaira a Teuruarii that he did, at Moerai (Rurutu Island) on February 13, 1921, together and in concert with Tinorrua Hurahtia, wilfully embezzle various goods to the detriment of Sum –You, an offence punishable under art. 378 and 401 of the Penal Code


 * The court says that for all the reasons it has given, the Special Justice of the Peace for Tubuai did have jurisdiction to try Rooteatauira's case, and upholds the previous judgement. - Ka renjc 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Could you or anybody else make head or tale about what this is talking about? Is the second part a play?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the history of colonisation of the two islands, bringing out the farcical nature of two great powers being interested in what happened to two "grains of dust". It starts in fairy tale format and then is structured like a play. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good translation to me (I corrected some little mispellings in the french bold texts), given the classic dreary juridic tongue used here. As for the problem core (fond de l'affaire) , 99 frenchmen on 100 , forgetting the numerous abuses of french colonial power , would shrug their shoulders & say "C'est Clochemerle sous les tropiques". The a contrario argument seems to me especially juicy : what do lawyers think of that "forain" (i. e. "taken on the local market grounds"  ) judgment ?. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)  ...

Arabic speaker needed
Is there any reader of this desk who knows Arabic who would be able to say whether this page provides any valid support for the new article Arabian Memory Championship? I suspect that an AFD is in order, but would like to know a little more first. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be worth leaving a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab world. --Viennese Waltz 16:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Translation help
I received this on my cell phone. Can you please translate the following Spanish into English for me: Q cuando te djas ver y hacemos algo este es. Mi numero juank roa.76.215.108.198 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dejarse ver (here conjugated te dejas ver) literally means "let yourself be seen". The phrase is something like "When can we see each other and we do something. This is my number". The dot should be after algo. Este es... belongs to the next sentence — Frankie (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a text message? Would there be some risk in simply asking the person what the mean? μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, well, it reminds me of mail I sometimes get from lonely Russian cuties .... —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, come to think of it, the OP didn't specify if this was an unsolicited message, or if they know the sender. The phrase is clear but I cannot find a more natural way to say it in English. Also, there could be some innuendo in the message, or it could just be "Hey, let's meet up!" — Frankie (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)