Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 October 11

= October 11 =

Nothing is impossible OR impossible is nothing
What's the difference stylistically and grammatically between both sentences? OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The first statement is another way of saying 'everything is possible'. It's grammatically fine to express the thought in either way, although saying 'nothing is impossible' is a good way to reply to someone telling you something can't be done.
 * The second statement is, on the face of it, grammatically incorrect. The word order is wrong - it sounds like something Yoda would say. However, spoken with a certain emphasis: "impossible is nothing!", it can mean something like 'I am prepared/able to do absolutely anything, including things others consider impossible, and to go even further than that'. It would be fine in advertising copy or political speech writing, but probably wouldn't work well in a formal report, for example. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The second one seems to be invoking the Use-mention distinction: "'Impossible' is nothing!" = "Claims of impossibility are as nothing to me!"AlexTiefling (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing is the subject and is impossible is a predicative expression that describes it. The latter comprises a linking verb orcopula, and a predicative adjective.  English relies mainly on word order to identify the subject and object of a sentence, whereas some other languages actually mark them by changing them.  See Subject-verb-object.  It's possible to read the second sentence in the way Mike and Alex have suggested, in which case impossible is the subject and nothing is a predicative nominal.  In theory, inversion could also allow nothing to remain the subject - for example, compare with Tender Is The Night.  But it sounds odd and mannered, and isn't the first assumption a native speaker would make on reading the phrase. -  Ka renjc 15:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to correct something that Cucumber Mike said, "Nothing is impossible" is not necessarily the exact same meaning as "everything is possible". The concept of Litotes shows how double negation isn't always equivalent to no negation at all.  It may be the sense the speaker is trying to convey, but it doesn't have to be.  If I say "She's not ugly", I could mean either "She's plain looking, but not offensive" or I could mean "She's smokin' hot".  The second usage would be the use of litotes, but it isn't always clear without some context, such as the body language or intonation of the speaker, or the nature of the conversation to know what the exact meaning of a phrase like that is.  For example, if two friends are discussing a third friend, and the one said "She's hideous!" and the second said "Well, she's not ugly!", that's the first usage.  If the two friends conversation went this way Friend 1: "Damn she's fine looking".  Friend 2: "Well, she's not ugly!", that's the second.  It only takes a subtle change of context to completely change the meaning of a phrase.  For a humorous example, seethis video, fast forward to 2:00.  -- Jayron  32  16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)ʙ̩
 * No, you're right. I expressed myself badly. I meant to get over the point that, if your friend tells you he wants to have his 21st birthday party on the Moon, you can say 'Hey, everything's possible' or 'Hey, nothing's impossible' and be fine, grammatically speaking, either way. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Grammatically yes. Semantically, not at all.  -- Jayron  32  16:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I found a WK link to Impossible Is Nothing (video résumé) confirming that it sounds mannered, but the author appears to be a native speaker. I am aware that the second sentence is much less uncommon, but does that make it ungrammatical? I thought that it was a way to putting stress on 'nothing' instead of on 'impossible.' The phrase was also used by Adidas, probably taking some liberty to break the grammar for marketing purposes. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First, the two statements in no way mean the same thing. They are not simply restatements of each other. The second statement undoubtedly does not follow normal, standard rules of English grammar. However, there are times when it can be useful to break the rules in order to emphasise a point - something like when Shakespeare has Julius Caesar say "This was the most unkindest cut of all." I'm sure there's a word for this practice, but I can't think of it right now. Someone will be along shortly to rescue me. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider this paraphrase of Alice in Wonderland:
 * "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
 * "Impossible?" scoffed the Queen. "Impossible is nothing." "When I was younger, I would practice for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Help fixing an apparent translation from Italian
The article Aliprandi looks like it's been badly translated, either in part or in full, from the Italian version of the article, it:Aliprandi. Could someone with appropriate skills possibly fix up or delete the sentences that don't make much sense in the English version?--Dweller (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian help
What are the Russian words in File:Brightonbeachbrooklyn.JPG? Some of one is obscured by a pillar. Can you figure out the full word? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My knowlegde of Cyrillic letters is limited (and my knowledge of Russian practically non-existent), but the obscured words read Чёрное море, meaning "Black Sea". The first word is "Magasin" meaning "shop", so I'd bet the whole thing reads "Black Sea bookstore", just as the shop's English name--Ferkelparade &pi; 16:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, except that that's a z in магазин "magazin". μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The other word is knigi, "books". 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * МАГАЗИН КНИГИ ЧЕРНОЕ МОРЕ. The diaeresis of the letter Ё is not actually obligatory in Russian spelling; see halfway down the #Russian section of Yo (Cyrillic). --Theurgist (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Anyway, what is the Russian at File:Storefront of NY Central Pharmacy.jpg? Also, would anyone mind adding a Russian language description to File:Brightonbeachbrooklyn.JPG? Found a description on the Russian Wikipedia. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's центральная аптека, tsentral'naja apteka, "central apothecary" (i.e. drugstore). μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It would be nice to have a Russian description for File:Storefront of NY Central Pharmacy.jpg as wellWhisperToMe (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't speak standard Russian, so am afraid to compose it myself, others here are competent to do so. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just added a Russian description. Lesgles (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese sources -> English
I'm working on the State Grid Corporation of China, one of the biggest companies in the world according to Wikipedia, but as a Chinese-only company, most of their sources are in Chinese.

I have done the best I can to improve the article with the English sources I can find. Does anyone have some guidance on how to (a) see if there is a better version in the Chinese Wikipedia that can be translated or (b) a good way to to get a translation of the sources? Corporate 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Visit the article at zh:国家电网 and then find a user who speaks good English (EN-3 to 5 or N) on ZH Wikipedia, and see if they can helpWhisperToMe (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do a google translate, pick out the paragraphs that look interesting, and post them here, plenty of native speakers of Chinese are active here.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Nicholas" with an "M"
Can anyone explain how in a group of central and eastern European languages, the variant of the name Nicholas begins with an M? It seems to be inPolish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian (but not any related language),Lithuanian (but not Latvian), Belarusian and Ukrainian (but not Russian). Clearly an areal feature (possibly corresponding with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), but how and why did it occur?93.96.208.82 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The name is also used in Ruthenian and, according to Babynames.com, in Finnish. A search at Google Scholar doesn't return anything useful.  My suspicion is it is due to interference from the name Mikhail. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See, and I was thinking that there was some sort of transition, akin to Grimm's law in western Languages, that perhaps those languages have some sort of N-->M shift present in many words. I don't speak any of them, but are there other analogues where N words in Western European languages are M words in the cognate in Eastern European languages?  Maybe in all positions, maybe only in initial positions, maybe when followed by a vowel?  I only ask because my 3-year old son (an obvious native English speaker, but a very young one) confuses and swaps "N" and "M" sometimes (my favorite is that he says "Lenomade" for Lemonade and "Walnart" for "Walmart".  Otherwise, he's quite eloquent).  So, does anyone who speaks those languages know?  -- Jayron  32  20:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemonade > lenomade is metathesis, Walmart > Walnart is phonetic assimilation. Both phenomena can occur regularly accross the sounds of a language, or just in individual words. My little sister used to call medicine "bedimus", which exhibits a complex case of both changes.  Theunconditioned sound change of initial /n/ to /m/ is unheard of as far as I know. Final /m/ to /n/ is common.  Final /n/ to /m/ is quite rare, and in Portuguese is a result of the neutralization and reanalysis of final nasal consonants. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But the fact that it's languages within a certain area (irrespective of the familial relations of the languages: we have all the West Slavic languages, some East Slavic ones, one Baltic and one isolated Uralic) suggests that there is some kind of specific influence in that area that seems to have spread. Perhaps for instance, there was some (say) Polish leader whose name became spelt like this, and then it spread to the various areas he was leader of? 93.96.208.82 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is definitely not a regular sound change in this case, which points strongly to interference. (Unfortunately our link linguistic interference doesn't help here.)  Compare the word citizen which comes from the same source that gave the expected modern French citoyen, but shows interference from denizen:  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=citizen The  areal surmise is likely right in tracing it to thePolish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, just can't confirm that without a source, and my net searches have been unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Medeis's hypothesis is correct, according to Vasmer: "Народн. Мику́ла получило м- от Михаи́л, как и польск. Мikоłаj. Объяснение м- из нов.-греч. невозможно, вопреки Соболевскому." "Popular Mikula [m forms are also found in folk Russian] gained an m- from Mikhail, as did the Polish Мikоłаj. The explanation of m- from modern Greek is impossible, despite what Sobolevsky says." Lesgles (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is found in Russian it is likely traceable to northern (i.e., Western and Eastern) Slavic which is a dialect continuum, or even earlier. It's curious whether it's attested in Bulgarian or Slovenian, which are the outliers of Southern Slavic. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "It's curious whether ...". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  03:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's suspicious you can't guess. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Must you, Medeis? Can you not simply answer a simple question?  It's not my fault if you can't write comprehensible English.
 * You seem to have confused possibly 3 idioms:
 * (a) "It's curious that ...". This takes something that is at least asserted as true, and wonders something about it, which could extend to its very truth value.
 * (b) "I'm curious about ...". This is a non-specific expression of curiosity about something.
 * (c) "I don't know whether ...". This is simply wondering whether something is true or not.
 * I have no idea whether you're saying:
 * this N-M phenomenon is attested in Bulgarian and Slovenian, and you find that a curious state of affairs; or
 * you don't know whether it's attested in those languages or not, but you're interested in finding out; or
 * something else. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of It's curious whether in my first statement and the use of It's suspicious (that) in my second statement was intentionally functionally analogous and meant as a rather broad hint as to how I was using the phrase in the first case. (And it is curious that you would think, even though I used the term "whether", that I was suggesting it might be a fact that Mikolai is attested in Slovenian and Bulgarian.)  Hopefully, you will find this helpful.μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your erudition may be your undoing. I have not had the formal training in linguistics that you seem to have; all I know is when something makes sense and when it doesn't.  Do not necessarily expect me to pick up on the subtle clues that someone with your level of education could be expected to.  I can stretch my brain to handle many cases of sub-optimal expression, but sometimes that would require me to make unwarranted assumptions.  I've been hanging around here long enough to know not to do that.  (The only possibly unwarranted assumption I ever make is that good faith is being exercised.)  As you were using a combination of words ("It's curious whether") that has no known precedent, I couldn't possibly know that "whether" was meant to bear the main meaning, as opposed to "It's curious".  That is why I asked a simple 9-word question.  A simple 9-word answer would have been really good.  Thanks for the explanation you did provide..  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an aphorism I often use in cases like what Jack is describing above. "I don't need to be a chef to know what my food tastes like".  It is quite a suitable sentiment for what just went down here, I think.  -- Jayron  32  16:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "No known precedent"? Here are six dozen or so usages of "is curious whether" ("it is curious whether the Court analyzed in detail all situations where PLF's liability would cover medical expenses in a malpractice situation ..." "It is curious whether internet marketing companies will be able to stay on their toes and take advantage of trending news about the products or ..." "As such, it is curious whether or not the latest model of saber, the M1860, developed just last year, will even come into service." "As they worked in the same area, it is curious whether the three African American statisticians Charles Bell, Albert Turner Bharucha-Reid, and David Blackwell ..." "It is curious whether Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement prior to her marriage.") mostly in formal edited writing, and including a Yale linguistics paper: "Hirayama (1964) records the above –ha ne-‐nu as the negative, so it is curious whether the negative form has changed or whether these are instances of ...".  Here are a few thousand uses with "it's curious whether".  No specific linguistic training is needed here, no more than is needed to understand what someone means when he starts a sentence with "hopefully".  It's truly curious whether anyone else is confused by this impersonal phrasing. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The things you learn here.  All I can say is that I have never in my life heard it until now; I would never choose to say or write it; and I would suggest others also refrain from it, because, as I said above, it is inherently confusing and ambiguous, seeming to conflate different and contradictory idioms and not clearly meaning any one of them (because it couldn't possibly cover all these bases).
 * "It is curious" normally precedes something that is curiosity-worthy but not in doubt. My first hit when I google "It is curious" is a classic example: "It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare".  My understanding of your examples is of things that  are  in doubt.  And that's what troubles me with all of them.  The sentences start out leading the reader down the track of certainty ("It is curious"), but then, "whether" immediately diverts them onto the track of uncertainty.  Which bit of the sentence are they supposed to believe?  They end up in no-reader's-land.  They have to choose.  Different readers will choose different meanings.  If my life depended on it, I'd probably be guided by the presence of "whether", and believe that "It is curious whether Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement" means "We don't know whether or not Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement, but we're curious".
 * But if you're telling me that it actually means "It is curious that Chelsea Clinton signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement", and that there is no doubt being expressed, I'd have to ask you how you can be so sure of your interpretation. I'm not saying mine is necessarily any more valid, btw.  Either way, it's a Fail with a Capital F for Good Writing.  The fact that we can find many examples of its use means nothing more than we can find many examples of any badly composed sentence we care to think of.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Two things. The "whether" makes it a question, so there's no overlap between "It is curious whether" expressing curiosity about whether something is the case, and "it is curious that", expressing that there is a fact which is odd.  The other is that "it is curious" is being used here impersonally.  There is no "it" which is curious.  Similar to the impersonal use of "hopefully" as in "Hopefully the Yankees will win."  One is not saying that when the Yankees win the will be hopeful as they do it.  What is being expressed is, "One hopes the Yankees will win" or "It is a matter of curiosity whether the form exists in Slovenian and Bulgarian."  Of course one suspects all this drama from the beginning has been in order to allow you a venue to say such things as "Fail with a Capital F for Good Writing".  Instead of implications of bad faith that make it hard for me to take you seriously, you couldd simply have google the phrase and found tens of thousands of instances of its use.  I am quite certain you understood what was meant from the beginning, and that no one else has shared your reported confusion.  I have no intention of reading or responding further on this silliness, so I do hope someone will hat the conversation of what I mean by "it is curious whether" to here and put it out of its misery.μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We were having a civil conversation until now, one that was about meaning and interpretation. It was not about you and me personally.  It's sad that you've injected incivility, and that you've made it personal, and that you've accused me of bad faith, and that you've abandoned the conversation after your final spray so that you're safe from whatever I may have to say in response to your incredible and unforgiveable, but sadly all too predictable, rudeness.  No matter, it will be here in perpetuity for you to read in your spare time.
 * I asked a simple agenda-free 9-word question (Not sure what you mean by "It's curious whether ..."), and all I wanted was a simple agenda-free short answer in return, not all this palaver. That was in your power to provide.  You chose not to provide it.  That is and remains your responsibility.  You really need to examine your problem with anyone ever asking you to explain anything you say.  If you're so insecure that you can't just answer them without suspecting their motives, I feel very sorry for you.  I hope you can find peace.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Aaand to bring the debate back - in Slovenian the name is not among the most popular ones, but it does have both variants. There's Nikolaj and Miklavž. Although that second one is limited almost entirely to the name of the Slovenian folk version of the Christmas gift bringer. Not saying this second version is non-existent as a personal name, but it is fairly rare.192.51.44.16 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, I know someone named Nichael (with an English surname). Our acquaintance isn't close enough that I've dared ask how that happened.—Tamfang (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is always Nichelle Nichols

Horse/Hors/Pferd/Equus
dictionary.com says that the word "Horse" is cognate with the Old Norse "Hross", and cognate with the German "Ross". But the German word for Horse is "Pferd". Where did "Pferd" come from? It certainly doesn't appear to be related to "Hross" or the Latin "Equus". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary says it derives from the Latin paraveredus, meaning "An extra horse; post horse or courier's horse for outlying or out of the way places". Presumably the Romans considered Germany an out of the way place. Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * English palfrey is from the same root, via Anglo-Norman. Lesgles (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Mallory and Adams, horse itself is apparently cognate with hurry, course, car, and Epicurus, all from PIE *kers.μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And then there's French cheval and Spanish caballo, which I believe come from late Latin caballus, meaning "nag" - from which we ultimately get "chivalry". --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In German, "das Ross" does mean "the steed" and I have seen it used, although it is true "das Pferd" was much more common in my personal everyday experience. Falconus p t   c 15:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)