Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 January 18

= January 18 =

Infrastructure word
Hello, does anybody know what is the opposite word of ‘infrastructure’? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC))


 * Superstructure is close, but it does depend on the usage. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, that is a near opposite of the first sense of 'infrastructure', which is the older, more literal sense of "the structure below" - however, in my experience, that sense is far less common than the second sense, of 'public facilities, services and installations' - which is a metaphorical sense of "below": bridges underpin a city in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one. If you think of infrastructure as important and necessary, then cruft is sort of the opposite of that. But this gets sort of subjective. e.g. the Ryugyong_Hotel - is this important infrastructure or useless cruft? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You'll need to be more specific about what you mean. "Opposite" is not a well-defined concept, because many ideas can be placed on several different scales, and "opposite" assumes there is only one scale to view it on. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I only new what SemanticMantis as the second sense. Now I know that it can be used as a base. I mean the inner structure of a CPU case, body, phone and so on. How can you define the outer structure in a sentence; "The infrastructure and the ________________ is ..." -- (Russell.mo (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC))
 * The word 'infrastructure' does not mean "the inner structure of a CPU case, body, phone and so on". So you need to think again. --Viennese Waltz 09:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * shell, casing, exterior, ... No such user (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the "inner structure of a CPU case, body, phone and so on" might be described as the internals. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of you have awesome names...lol. One good one I found so far was forgetaboutit, the other inappropriate and funny one, muddafucca or something like that.
 * Anyways,
 * I've checked the dictionaries, they do mean what I stated, in other words, in a figurative way I guess.
 * Cambridge Dictionary: the basic systems and services, such as transport and power supplies, a country or an organisation uses to work effectively.
 * Oxford Dictionary: basic structural foundations of a society or enterprise.
 * Am I taking things in the wrong way, or am I right?
 * No such user: I'm looking for a high quality word, if there is no opposite or vice versa (I don't know how to put it...) The word outer structure sounds lame, it goes better with inner structure which also sounds lame.
 * Any ideas friends?
 * (Russell.mo (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC))


 * I don't think that "outer structure" sounds particularly lame. Offhand, I would probably formulate it as "internal and external structures"; internal and external structures seems to support me; "internals and externals" could be a shorter but less formal formulation. No such user (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In this context, do "casing" and "components" not work? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I have to manipulate myself with your words, considering it as formal.
 * And, no user:87.81.230.195/212.95.237.92, I was thinking of using the words generally, as in, anything and everything i.e. consisted with component(s).
 * Thank you all.
 * (Russell.mo (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC))

Translation of Latin titles
Hi, I'd appreciate some help translating some Latin titles of works that appear in "John Fortescue (judge)":


 * De natura legis nature → The Nature of Natural Law?
 * De titulo Edwardi comitis Marchiæ → The Title of Edward, Earl of March? (The "Edward" in question was either Edward IV or Edward V of England, but I can't tell which one.)
 * Defensio juris domus Lancastriæ i  → Defence of the Rights of the House of Lancaster?
 * Opusculum de natura legis naturæ et de ejus censura in successione regnorum suprema – I'm guessing something like A Small Work on the Nature of Natural Law and Criticism of it in the Succession of Supreme Kingdoms? Google Translate unhelpfully provides the following: "A copy was censorship in the succession of the kingdoms of the nature of the supreme law of nature, and of its".

Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My Latin isn't great, but I don't see any errors in those translations except probably the last one. Since kingdoms don't usually succeed each other, I suggest that it is about the reigns of successive monarchs. Since we don't usually use "supreme" to modify "reign", I suggest ...in the Succession of Supreme Rulers as the most natural translation.


 * But I am sure that there are three spelling errors in the original titles as given above: nature should be naturæ; Lancastriæi should be Lancastriæ; and suprema should be supremorum . I have confirmed all three corrections by using Google Books to search for other books referring to Fortescue's titles.  Note however that I was not able to view pages of the original books themselves, to confirm that they spelled those words with an ae ligature (as used to be common, and as I've assumed here) or with the plain letters "ae" (as is more usual in modern writing quoting Latin). --65.94.50.4 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Nature" could be "naturae" with a "collapsed diphthong", although I don't know how likely that is at this period. "Suprema" would naturally go with "successione", "in the supreme succession of kings", so I don't think it's necessary to correct it to "supremorum" (although "suprema" has several other possible senses that might fit better than the English "supreme"). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 65, for the suggestion of Googling for the titles. I can confirm that the correct titles are:
 * Defensio juris domus Lancastriæ ; and
 * Opusculum de natura legis naturæ et de ejus censura in successione regnorum suprema .
 * Some sources indicate the fifth word in the second title above as nature, so it looks like De natura legis nature is just a short version of that title. Thanks also, Adam. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this is interesting. If you do a phrase search (i.e. use quotation marks) in Google Books on "Censura in Successione regnorum", you will find a large number of hits where the next word is supremorum, as I said. But there are also some with suprema, and one (about the 15th hit, Natural Law and Natural Rights by John Finnis) that doesn't just cite the title, it discusses it and gives an English translation.  Suprema is right; my apologies for the error.  Finnis writes on page 251:
 * The fact that bad people happen to originate a government does not (Fortescue explained) affect the truth that governing power has its beginnings under, and by virtue of, the 'law of nature', and at all times was and remains regulated by that natural law.
 * Then on page 258 he adds the following endnote:
 * The full title of Fortescue's treatise on natural law is significant: De Natura Legis Naturae et de ejus Censura in Successione Regnorum Suprema ('On the nature of the law of nature, and on its judgment on the succession to supreme office in kingdoms').
 * Note also his translation "law of nature" rather than "natural law", and "judgment" for censura. And this guy seems to know what he's talking about, so I think we've found our answers.


 * On a final point, note that he describes this as the "full title". I think we can additionally conclude that the first and last titles as given in the original posting are the same book. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great detective work! I'll update the article. Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)