Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 April 9

= April 9 =

French Bible
Is there a standard French translation of the Bible? I know that there isn't really one in English, but, for example, the King James Version was influential on the language itself and English speakers frequently quote it (whether they realize it or not). Does French have a Bible like that? Wikipedia suggests the Bible de Jérusalem is the one most often used in France, but when French people mention "the Bible", what Bible would they mean? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Bible de Port-Royal. The Jerusalem Bible wasn't published until the 1950's. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Stephanus translation is often mentioned (though presumably quite archaic by now)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I know you can read French, here is a list: Traductions de la Bible en français — AldoSyrt (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I should have thought to look there...thanks all! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Arabic help: Israeli train stations
What is the Arabic seen in the pictures of these Israeli train stations? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Rakevet Merkaz.jpg
 * File:Haifa Ha'shmona.jpg
 * The first one is محطة حيفا مركز - هشمونه. The second one is تل أبيب مركز سافيدور. As often is the case in Israel, the Arabic versions in public spots are a bit awkward. In both cases the word 'Merkez' is treated as a part of a transliterated Hebrew name, even though the exact same word exists in Arabic. Regarding Savidor, the Arabic name doesn't feature the word 'station' (unlike Hebrew and English), so it literally says 'Tel Aviv Centre of Savidor' (not 'Savidor Central Station'). The Haifa station name is more consequent, as the English version also clarifies that they portray 'Merkez-Hashmona' as a proper name, untranslated in both English and Arabic. --Soman (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll add the Arabic to the articles, and also I will go to the Arabic Wikipedia and make requests for stubs in Arabic on these train stations. If they find better/more relevant names the articles can use those and these ones can be redirects WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

is President Obama fluent in African American Vernacular English?
I ask this with the understanding that as any vernacular, anyone can be fluent who has learned it. My question is whether President Obama is fluent in African American Vernacular English? Are there any examples of him using it (when he wants to)? This is not to imply in any way that this would be a first or primary language for him, just curious if he can even speak it. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Check if reliable sources say so. I'm sure there may be a news article, book, or journal which discusses it. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's kind of what the OP is already asking for – reliable sources. --Viennese Waltz 11:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 91.120.48.242 -- He heard a lot of that during his earlier years in Chicago, and presumably he could incorporate selective features of it into his speech (as part of his repertoire of linguistic registers), if he wanted to, but if he tried to come across all gangsta or whatever, that would obviously seem incredibly phoney... AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comment is INCREDIBLY rude. Millions of people speak African American Vernacular English as their first or only dialect/way of speaking.  You can't just call it "trying to come across all gangsta or whatever".  I'm done with this thread. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's totally uncalled for. AnonMoos was not calling AAVE gangsta per se, he was specifically saying that if Obama (for whom it is not his first way of speaking) spoke that way, he might be seen as "trying to come across all gangsta". --Viennese Waltz 11:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. Analogously, I have a reasonable understanding of the Scots language, but if I tried speaking it, as it is spoken by native speakers, I would sound like a terrible tartan fake. President Obama's cultural background is extremely diverse, but there's no evidence that it's included sufficient closeness to major centres of AAVE that he'd have come to make fluent use of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this count as such fluency? μηδείς (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked for examples (or perhaps cited discussions) of the topic not personal opinion of how Obama would sound. But my own opinion is that given his and his wife's background, it is likely that it has influenced his speech and even that he has spoken it (as, say a community activist or political leader in the community, or privately). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A pertinent post on the professional linguists' blog Language Log has recently appeared. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Blessed be..." used in a sentence? [Sentence construction]
"Blessed be the meek for they shall inherit the earth."

What is the "be" in this sentence supposed to mean? Is it subjunctive? Where is the subject? Is the subject "the meek"? The direct object has got to be "the earth", right? What does "inherit" supposed to mean? Does it mean to "dominate" the earth? I remember that in Walking with Monsters, the narrator uses the phrase "But who shall inherit this blue planet?" referring to Earth as the blue planet, and the "who" to the creatures living on the blue, watery planet. In this sense, the "inherit" is likely to mean the dominion of the early life on earth. Sneazy (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the usual translation of the line from the Sermon on the Mount is "blessed are...", not "blessed be...". Jesus is asserting that the meek are blessed, not commanding it.  But if you were to say "blessed be", yes, that would be subjunctive, specifically the "mandative" or "jussive" subjunctive (third-person imperative). --Trovatore (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * King James has "Blessed be ye poor" (Luke 6:20) but "Blessed are ye that weep", "Blessed be ye when shall hate you" following. Another 63 instances of "Blessed be" in the KJV don't always follow that pattern though . "Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad", "Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians", "blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand" Rmhermen (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually every translation I checked used "Blessed be..." at least a few times - even the modern NIV and Message versions. Rmhermen (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously there would be different usages for different parts of the text. But what translations use "be" in the "blessed are" sections of the Sermon on the Mount?  I think this is just a misquote. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think so too. If someone asked me to complete a line in a Christian context beginning "Blessed be...", I'd expect "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (thinking of Ephesians 1:3, although the exact same phrase introduces 1 Peter 1:3). AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Here is a list of translations of Matthew 5:5, along with various commentaries. For instance, Barnes writes, "They shall inherit the earth - This might have been translated the land. It is probable that here is a reference to the manner in which the Jews commonly expressed themselves to denote any great blessing. It was promised to them that they should inherit the land of Canaan." Some have interpreted this as referring to the Kingdom of God/Heaven. As for the grammar, it is a basic inversion; the more usual word order would be "The meek are blessed, for they shall inherit the earth." It contains two clauses: in the first, The meek is the subject, blessed is a subject complement (predicate adjective); in the second, subordinate, clause, they is the subject and earth is the object. Lesgles (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Matthew 5:5 is a quotation of the Septuagint at Psalms 36:11 (37:11 in Masoretic). So, if you want to know what exactly is meant by inheriting the Earth, it might also be good to look at that line there.  -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Example Blessed be the ones who give me free food. I think "blessed be" as opposed to "blessed are" means that the person should be blessed for being/doing something, but doesn't mean that he is blessed, as "blessed are" would seemingly suggest. Have a blessed day.☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Possessive Phrases question.
I've read English possessive and am still somewhat confused on the proper way to do a phrase. The "Society of Professional Journalists" gives out the Sigma Delta Chi Award. In an article about a person who has earned the award would it be
 * Jane Doe has earned the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi Award.

or


 * Jane Doe has earned the Society of Professional Journalists's Sigma Delta Chi Award.

Naraht (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The first one looks better to me, but even better would be "Jane Doe has earned the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists. Lesgles (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is that better? I find the original form shorter and no less clear. --ColinFine (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To get back to the question, I -think- the latter is correct, as "society" is singular. --Wirbelwind( ヴィルヴェルヴィント ) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's certainly true that the thing that is possessed grammatically by Sigma Delta Chi Award is the Society, not the Journalists.  However, we can't do anything with Society (it would be very wrong to write "the Society's of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi Award"), and we can't even transpose any punctuation that would have been added to Society had it stood alone, onto another word with which it is associated.  That would be like justifying writing "an green apple" by saying the "an" refers to the "apple" and must be "an" rather than "a" because "apple" starts with a vowel.  That is a silly argument.  Whether it's "a" or "an" is decided by the first word after the article, regardless of its function in the sentence.  Likewise, the possessive ending applies to the last component of the complex subject.  We have to effectively treat "Society of Professional Journalists" as if it were not 4 words but 1 (plural) word, and possessivize it accordingly.  It works just like any plural word ending in -s, and takes an apostrophe only.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The core issue here is whether "journalists" takes an apostrophe only, or an -'s. It's a little tricky because the thing that is possessed grammatically by Sigma Delta Chi Award is the Society, not the Journalists.  However, we have to treat "Society of Professional Journalists" as if it were a single word, and possess it accordingly.  It works just like any plural word ending in -s, and takes an apostrophe only.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lucky I read your comment again, Jack, just as I was editing, otherwise I would have looked a bit silly clarifying you had meant to say 'ending in -s', when 'ending in -s' was written there plain for all to see... :)  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  23:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See above for more expansive comments. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And the deeper issue is that the apostrophe and its placement are not part of the language at all, but part of the invented set of rules for writing it; but the rule predates the change in English grammar which allows the possessive clitic to attach to a phrase rather than a word, and has rarely or never been rewritten to accommodate this new case. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC).
 * ... not part of the language at all ...: What did you use to write that sentence, if not a language?  You're adopting a very limited view of language, and according written languages not even the status of country bumpkin cousins of spoken languages.  Where would "Shakespeare" et al be without the written word?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We'd all still be shaking spears then.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  10:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Read what I said, Jack. Of course writing is valuable. But Engl'ish wit'h the apos'troph'es mi'spl'aced is still English (as Terry Pratchett has shown us!) and futhermore if you read out what I just wrote, then unless you deliberately distort it in a way that the apostrophe hardly ever indicates doing, the sound will be identical to if I'd written it more conventionally. That's what I mean by "not part of the language". --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that. But you can't dismiss punctuation as "not part of the language at all".  Or upper/lower case.  Or mathematical and other symbols.  The written language is not just the patterns we make with the 26 letters of the alphabet. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The other option, increasingly common nowadays, is to treat these like Academy Award, and just say "the Society of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi Award". Of course, this would sound the same as "the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi Award", which reflects the artificiality of apostrophes when looked at from the point of view of the spoken language. My preference, as I said above, is to break it up to avoid the big noun pile-up, but that's just me. Lesgles (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That so-called artificiality is matched by that of homographs, from the point of view of the written language. It doesn't matter to a writer that he winds up having to re-read The Wind in the Willows in order to write the sequel, Gone With the Wind in the Willows.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Didn't I?" "Did not I?" "Did I not?"
In speech, "Didn't I...?" seems to be perfectly normal. Semantically, "Didn't I...?" and "Did not I...?" is the same thing. The latter is the contraction of the former. However, it seems I hear "Did I not...?" more often. Why? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't I go to the park today?
 * Did not I go to the park today?
 * Did I not go to the park today?
 * Did I go to the park today?
 * Did I or did I not go to the park today?
 * Did I or did not I go to the park today?
 * Your constructions with 'did not I...' are incorrect [EDIT:] insofaras they are not used in English anymore.
 * 'Did I not...' is more formal than 'didn't I...' Also, as with all formal language, it can - but does not always - have condescending overtones.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  23:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Taken from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice: "Perhaps you mean what I overheard between him and Mr. Robinson; did not I mention it to you? Mr. Robinson's asking him how he liked our Meryton assemblies, and whether he did not think there were a great many pretty women in the room, and which he thought the prettiest? and his answering immediately to the last question -- 'Oh! the eldest Miss Bennet beyond a doubt, there cannot be two opinions on that point.'" 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That was written 200 years ago; we just don't say it like that anymore. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * None of these is incorrect, including "did not I"; it's just obsolescent. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It probably also occasionally pops-up in modern speech ... people like to play with language. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed - it also appears in this rather wonderful website which aims "to help people all over the world in learning English Language". An example of the Past Perfect Progressive (Continuous) tense is apparently; "Had not he had not been going to school?" It has a certain English As She Is Spoke quality. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that that is complete rubbish as an example of something any native English speaker, anywhere, would ever, ever, ever say. Ever.  To teach it to learners of English is criminal.  Look at what the author of the site says about himself: I became a prorificient [sic] user of English as a second language.  A site to be regarded with deep suspicion.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You old spoilsport ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When the Blessed Jane says "Did not I", she might have assumed it would be read "Didn't I". She is always up to date with colloquial pronunciation. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)