Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 September 2

= September 2 =

English to Latin to English
I once used Google Translate to get the phrase "somni tempus", but I can't remember what the original English was. I suspect it may have been "fall asleep" or "go to sleep", but running either of those through Google Translate gets me something completely different, and "somni tempus" translates to "sleep!" with the exclamation mark. But I'm sure there was more to it. — Melab±1 &#9742; 03:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Time of sleep" would translate literally as "somni tempus", and that's what Google Translate gives. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing "Bedtime!" — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Translate gaans fill canny the noo/currently translates things idiomatically instead of of literally. The literal translation (and I'm using all my knowledge of Latin that I learned from High School Italian) of ""somni tempus" would be "time to sleep". I guess "somni tempus" in idiomatic Latin is "go to sleep!" in the imperative. Vestri mileage variari. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look plausible at all; 'tempus' would be redundant in such a construction. Google Translate doesn't known an idiom from a hole in the ground. Google Translate works statistically - it pieces together likely translations from existing texts whose translations it is more sure of (or that it has been directly told are good). This works badly in most cases, but especially badly in languages with a complex case structure (like Latin) or where the two languages are structurally very different. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually inflection makes everything less ambiguous because the function of a word is indicated in the word itself.--2.245.201.243 (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a sentence with a single subject, object, and verb, then yes...maybe. But with a proper chunk of Latin text there can still be quite a lot of ambiguity, as with any other language, and Google is absolutely rotten at deciphering it. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it makes any difference, what I wanted translated was supposed to be spoken with an exclamation mark. — Melab±1 &#9742; 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Somni tempus is really only going to work as a noun phrase as IP 65 indicates. Latin would use a command or a participle or a subjunctive.  Vade ad lectum! is pretty straightforward, or even just Cuba! which can mean recline to eat or sleep. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think dormi! more directly conveys "go to sleep" in the singular imperative. Marco polo (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Left-brained people
I know that the expression refers to people using their left brain hemisphere more often. However, what does it mean if you call somebody a "left-brained person"? What does that mean figuratively? Does it bear a negative connotation? I'm not a native speaker. --2.245.201.243 (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See Handedness and Lateralization of brain function. Some studies have found that people whose left brain hemisphere is dominant (people who are generally right-handed) are statistically more likely to be strong in reason and logic and less likely to be intuitive or creative.  So, saying that someone is left-brained is claiming that they are more rational and logical than average. In fact, this is a stereotype, and it is not always the case that people with dominant left hemispheres are especially logical or lacking in creativity.  I don't think that the expression has a negative connotation by itself, though I suppose a person who fancies himself creative might use it dismissively to suggest that someone else is less creative. Marco polo (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole "Stronger in reason and logic" is mostly bullshit. Handedness does indicate hemispheric dominance in brain scans, but there is less and less evidence that the old "left=logic and reason" and "right = language and creativity" is far from universal, and the more studies that are done, the more it seems that there is not a universal pattern of lateralized functions in people, and less indication that handedness is tied to any outward traits; that is that one can predict one's aptitudes merely by knowing which "hand" is your dominant hand.  That sort of thing is about as bullshit as the taste map and other unfortunate mularky foisted on school children as "factoids" that are more "oid" than "fact".  -- Jayron  32  02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was sent to the principal's office in second grade for calling bullshit on the taste map. I didn't even use that "naughty" term, but I think I called my teacher "stupid" a few times. Looking back, it wasn't her fault, she was just following a lesson plan. I'm glad newer kids don't have to deal with that anymore, but I'll bet more than a few feel the same way about hearing the "alternatives" to evolution. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I should point out that I was sent to the office about as equally for arguing logically as I was for sleeping, doodling, drumming or whistling. Whether I was right-brained or left-brained depended on whether the stimuli was boring. I figure that's mostly true for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)