Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 March 19

= March 19 =

Passato remoto
In Italian, verbs ending in -ere are often irregular in passato remoto, but I'd like to know about the regular ones. There are two endings for 1st-person singular (-ei/-etti), 3rd-person singular (-?/-ette) and plural (-erono/-ettero) respectively. The question mark is either -é or è because sources I've found don't agree with each other. I know there is confusion about "perché" and "perchè" even among Italians because people from different regions pronounce it either closed or open, but "perché" is considered the only correct form. Then how about passato remoto? Compared to -are (-ò) and -ire (-ì), one could think it's -è, but it:Passato remoto says it's -é. It seems that even my printed dictionary isn't sure about it. It knows both -ei/-etti and -erono/-ettero, but only gives one option for the 3rd-person singular (-ette). Is the acute or the grave accent correct? --2.245.119.88 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Latin distinguishes –ēre (more regular, less common) from –ĕre (less regular, very common); if Italian conflates them, that could cause some confusion. —Tamfang (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See the 30 entries listed at User:Wavelength/About Italian/Accent shifts.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've often had difficulty finding definitive answers on acute-v-grave final accents in Italian, but in this case I'm pretty sure it should be acute. It doesn't come up an awful lot because (i) passato remoto is a bit uncommon in the first place, (ii) most second-conjugation verbs have "irregular" passati remoti (not really irregular, usually, but not falling into the most common paradigm), and (iii) for most "regular" second-conjugation verbs, the -ette form is more usual.  The only exception to (iii) that pops to mind is potere, where I think potette just "sounds bad" to the Italian ear, because of the repetition.  And as I say, I'm fairly sure that it's poté rather than potè, but that's just my own intuition, which mayb be wrong.
 * Just a tangent that may be interesting to someone here: There's an interesting difference in meaning between the imperfect and the two perfect tenses (passato remoto, passato prossimo) for potere.  Potere means "can", so its past tense would be "could" in English.  But if you mean "could" in the sense of "had the ability to, whether or not it was brought to fruition", you use the imperfect poteva.  The two perfect forms (ha potuto or poté) both tend to imply that the thing was actually successfully accomplished. --Trovatore (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See "perse; perdé; perdette" at http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/Italian/perdere.html.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See "pèrse o perdé o perdètte" at http://dizionari.repubblica.it/Italiano/P/perdere.php.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For some confirmation, I checked two standard dictionaries, Garzanti and Treccani. potere, Garzanti says "pass.rem. io potéi (meno com. potètti; ant. possètti), tu potésti, egli poté, noi potémmo, voi potéste, essi potérono". For perdere, it gives "pass.rem. io pèrsi (o perdéi o perdètti), tu perdésti, egli pérse (o perdé o perdétte), noi perdémmo, voi perdéste, essi pèrsero (o perdéttero o perdérono)". Treccani says pretty much the same (potere, ), although it gives pèrse instead of pérse.
 * For the completely regular verbs, like credere, neither unfortunately gives the third person singular. There does seem to be some disagreement, some giving credé, some giving credè (in additon to credette). You might try asking at the Italian Wikipedia's Oracolo. Lesgles (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanish grain elevators
What's the typical term for grain elevator in Spanish? I'm finding translations as "elevador de granos", but I don't want to use a calque by accident. To my surprise, there's no es:wp article on these things. I'm using File:Idaville elevator complex.jpg at Idaville, Indiana, and I want to do the same thing at es:Idaville (Indiana). Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to worry,, elevador de granos is indeed the proper term. See the Portuguese article when the Spanish one is missing.  It won't always be the same or exact, but it will usually put you on the right track or confirm your intuition.  PS, next time you are in Spanish joint, ask for una ensalada de avogados bien picados. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd checked both pt:Elevador de grãos and ca:Elevador de gra, but you never know; it's always possible that Spanish would use a different term.  It's such a basic concept that I'm quite surprised that it has no es:wp article; my first assumption was that they likely had an article under a different title.  Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights of images violating ruels and regulation
Hello, I'm trying to get the understanding of the word copyright in images. Can I modify one image add/subtract a little in order to create a different/brand new one. I'll give you an example,, , File:Craniums of Homo.svg; say i change the background, change the colour of the sleeve, flip the image horizontally, will it work or will I be violating the copyright rules and regulations...? -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC))
 * I took the liberty of changing your &lt;ref&gt;s to inline links. Also by the way, when I share links I like to strip out fields that don't change the result, thus:, —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Btw, I did not grasp the rest, I can't view your link, it comes, probably as a warning in a different language. Also if you mean to tidy up the URL, I'll try my best. I have not learnt web page designing yet... I don't have much idea about it... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC))
 * With or without the stripped fields, I see a notice in Bengali presumably warning that something is trying to redirect me to the target page. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the derivative work article. Yes, by modifying the original, you've created a new work; however, the original copyright automatically covers derivative works.  If the original is copyrighted by Alice, and Bob makes a derivative work, the derivative work is copyrighted by both Alice and Bob, because both have played a part in its creation.  Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read through what you stated, my brain is mailfunctioning, if I'm not wrong, they allow it... I still would like to be reassured if you don't mind.
 * Q: I don't have the references (website links, book names and so on), no matter what the work will be derived. The problem(s) I have is, 1) Referencing, 2) I read some website(s) 'copyright laws' they strictly forbids copying/selling their material... If/when they find out, will it create a problem for me or will I be violating any rules and regulations if this material becomes a 'derivative' work? -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC))


 * You certainly have a lot of questions (cf article contributions). As for this question, see also this advice. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The advice you stated was for words/sentences/paragraphs. This is for images. The first underlying issue I have is 'referencing', in both posts. I understand Wikipedia's terms and condition (a lot of Wikipedians helped me in order to understand them), I feel safe too, Other websites, I don't trust, its a bit confusing to understand their copyright terms and condition, they don't give the privileges, strictly forbids...
 * Anyway, sorry for asking a lot of question, which seemed to have bothered you. This is how I learn. Wikipedia is the only place I learn things from now. This is my School/College/University, and Reference Desk is where I have my 'tutors'.  -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC))


 * I wonder if this covers redrawings? A lot of old textbooks used to say redrawn from Romer or the like. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My work is very old. Its more than a years work with no references... I have images with the work so i'm just confused... A Wikipedian gave me an excellent advice i.e. 'the Golden rule is to modify anything and everything in your own way'... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC))

You ask: I read some website(s) 'copyright laws' they strictly forbids copying/selling their material... If/when they find out, will it create a problem for me or will I be violating any rules and regulations if this material becomes a 'derivative' work? It seems to me that you're not so much asking about language as asking for the legal interpretation of (unidentified) "copyright laws" and of the word "derivative" in particular. One way to interpret the warning We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice at the top of this page is that you shouldn't be asking this at any WP reference desk. I cannot locate the string the Golden rule is to modify anything and everything in your own way, and out of context its meaning is unclear. In some applications it would be very wrong. If you take a photograph for which I possess the copyright and modify it in your own way, I normally still possess the copyright. There are certain ways around this but they depend on the particular legal system (in the US, it would help if you were a rich and famous artist and I a poorer and less known artist); you haven't specified the jurisdiction and if you did then you should almost certainly be asking this elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have English understanding problem, which improved a lot since the time I've been with Wikipedia.
 * I know what you mean, currently I don't have the facility to do so. That's why I sought advice in order to grasp the whole picture. I'm in a rut I can't get out of until/unless I accomplish some tasks which will take some time (already taken 3/4 years...). The jurisdiction would be UK, USA, Canada, India and Bangladesh (later two optional). There is no photos. I'm happy with Wikipedia, I know what to do, a lot of advice helped in order to grasp the complete picture of Wikipedia's copyright laws and referencing. At least I know I'm going the right way with Wikipedia's information. When time comes, I will seek lawyers advice... Its just the other websites/books..., Wikipedia does not possess the information, I wished to upload but I've been advised not to without references.
 * I clearly understand about the photo, logical. I'm not modifying any photos as it will look off putting... Only such images as outlined.
 * 'The Golden rule', its stated on the link you provided earlier, not exactly the way I stated, well, I guess I understood that way. Correct me if I'm wrong please. I'll be grateful If you guys could direct me the right way. My over one years of work consisted some of Wikipedia's material. I didn't know at that time I had to redo it in order to make both my work and Wikipedia seem better... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC))