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

Bold text

= September 11 =

Gulliver's Travels in Hindi
I read the novel Gulliver's Travels in English but I also want to read it in Hindi as my mother-tongue is Hindi. Can you, please, provide me a link to Hindi edition of Gulliver's Travels? This is very urgent. Thanks, for your great deed. Sunny Singh (DAV) (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the Wikipedia article गुलिवर्स ट्रेवल्स? Or do you mean a link to where you can buy the book in Hindi translation?  It seems Amazon.com limits their Indian operations to software development and a call centre, but I'm sure there are other online bookshops that do serve India and sell books in Hindi - for example: Infibeam though their only Hindi language offering for Gulliver's Travels seems to be for children.  Astronaut (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's always better to read books in the original language, provided you can, and you do seem to be proficient in English. Reading a translation introduces the possibility of losing subtle relationships.  For example, the characters Kanga and Roo from Winnie the Pooh aren't always translated as the beginning and end of the word kangaroo. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sunny is entitled to ask for whatever version he likes. Even though I have enjoyed the challenge of reading works in other languages, sometimes I simply want to relax and read them in my native tongue. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However, there's no guarantee Gulliver's Travels has ever been translated into Hindi. I think Sunny would have better luck asking at Hindi Wikipedia – or better yet, at a bookstore in India – than at English-language Wikipedia. Angr (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It has certainly been translated into Hindi, although finding clear links to a Hindi version is not easy with English searches, which is all I can do. And there is good reason to want a Hindi version.  Swift is far from easy reading even for university-educated native English speakers. Here, for example, is how it starts:  "I hope you will be ready to own publicly, whenever you shall be called to it, that by your great and frequent urgency you prevailed on me to publish a very loose and uncorrect account of my travels, with directions to hire some young gentleman of either university to put them in order, and correct the style, as my cousin Dampier did, by my advice, in his book called “A Voyage round the world.”  But I do not remember I gave you power to consent that any thing should be omitted, and much less that any thing should be inserted; therefore, as to the latter, I do here renounce every thing of that kind; particularly a paragraph about her majesty Queen Anne, of most pious and glorious memory; although I did reverence and esteem her more than any of human species." Looie496 (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that as the original text is very old, it is in the public domain and hence easily downloadable from the Internet (the Wikipedia artikle links to a Project Gutenberg download). However, any Hindi translation is likely to be much more recent and might still be covered by copyright. For this reason, legal downloads might not be possible to find. (This is not relevant if you intend to buy a paper version of the book). Jørgen (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Peruse"
This is sometimes used to mean a careful and thorough examination, but can also mean a casual glance. Which definition is more common and which preceded the other? ' Ankh '. Morpork  22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it specifies the level of thoroughness, similar to "look": "I took a quick look at it" versus "I looked at it all last night but couldn't figure out WTF they were talking about". StuRat (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See the conflicting definitions that Merriam Webster provides. ' Ankh '. Morpork  22:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not so, StuRat. The OED says "3. trans. To examine in detail; to scrutinize, inspect, survey, oversee; to consider, to take heed of. Now also (influenced by sense  4c): to look over briefly or superficially; to browse." --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems to be what I'm saying, unless you mean to exclude "peruse" ever having a meaning between "thorough read" and "cursory scan". StuRat (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's what EO has to say about it: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a light article on this topic. ' Ankh '. Morpork  00:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The meaning of peruse varies per use. StuRat (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, go with the etymology. Per- means "through" whether carefully or not. It does not mean glance at. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=peruse μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Except, as is clearly demonstrated above, it is now also used in the sense of a casual or quick scan. That's a fact; maybe one the purists don't like, but a fact nonetheless.  If it's any consolation, we all have to accept these unsavoury truths.  Me, I intensely dislike how many people talk about their "appendectomy", given that there's no such bodily organ as an "append", but I have no option but accept that such a "word" is often used.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a quick scan of the entire document. In both senses it refers to going through the entire document, either carefully or quickly. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then there are my terms for sex change operations, an "addadiktomy" and a "cutitoffamy". :-) StuRat (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of relevent reading here is the article Etymological fallacy. It can be fun and interesting to know what the root form of a word is.  But when trying to understand proper, modern usage it isn't always all that enlightening, and this discussion is a prime example of the etymological fallacy.  Merely because we know what the word "peruse" used to mean to some group of people sometime in the past doesn't necessarily mean that people today understand it to mean the same thing.  I'd say the vast majority of native English speakers use the word "peruse" to mean "to skim" or "to glance at" and not the older opposite meaning of "to look at thoroughly".  Confusing a bit?  Yes, but it is also important to know that older written works are using it to mean the older definition, so readers need to know that so as not to be confused.  The etymology is important to know in this case, which is why the OED isn't wrong; but overextending the use of that etymology is wrong: modern speakers who don't use it to mean that also aren't wrong.  Word use is all about context, and in the modern context it means something different than it used to at some point in the past.  -- Jayron  32  15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are objecting to a point I didn't make. In either sense, carefully or quickly, it still means scan the entire document.  That's not how I define "glance at", unless you mean actually glance at every page. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And sometimes the etymology would lead you to believe the word means something silly. An "autopsy", for example, would mean dissecting yourself.  It should properly be called a "homopsy". StuRat (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Autopsy" actually means "witnessing". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's even worse. If we go with the idea of always using words based on their etymology, we should say "My mother-in-law was yelling at me as I autopsied her". :-) StuRat (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I had never heard "peruse" used to mean anything other than "to read or examine thoroughly" until I read this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Has peruse turned in to one of those words that has one meaning and then evolves in to also having its opposite meaning? Like literally. Livewireo (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or sick, or bad? Or how cool and hot can mean essentially the same thing?  Or how "amazing" has become the sole positive adjective available to teenagers, which they use to mean "literally" hundreds of different things, while their repertoire of negative adjectives is undiminished?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See also User:Giraffedata/comprised of (a subpage about wrong usage).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "peruse" has an implication of "leisurely" and "at one's convenience". I think this may be where the notion of a "casual glance" or a "quick scan" comes in, but I don't think the word "peruse" has any implication concerning the care or thoroughness with which one reads. The word "read", by contrast, is a coarser word, in my opinion: when one "reads" something, one may be "working", while when one "peruses" something, one is doing so without any special effort. These are just my own opinions of how I think I hear the word used. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably an archaism, but "perusal" appearing on the bill from your solicitor has the opposite meaning from the everyday one. It means a reading, but with a very serious and lawyer-ly look on your face, so that you can charge $ 300 per hour for just carefully reading something. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)