Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 February 7

= February 7 =

Adjective to describe event that didn't happen
I'm looking for an adjective that, when applied to a putative event in the past, means that said event did not in fact happen. But the adjective should not impute any particular intent to the reporter of the event. So for example "fictional" and "fictitious" are wrong, because they imply that the reporter knew the event did not happen. The best I've been able to come up with is "nonexistent", but it sounds very strange; while you can take the philosophical position that the past continues to exist in some sense, it is very unusual in English to speak of events in the past as "existing". --Trovatore (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mythical" or "legendary", at least in some circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but neither of those works. I want an adjective that says it didn't happen, but is completely neutral about why anyone anyone might have said or thought that it happened. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example? Also, "apocryphal" is sometimes used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It came up in relation to the so-called Bowling Green massacre. "Apocryphal" isn't right either; it suggests ancient writings, or by extension a story that has been widely believed for a long time. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a hunch that was the one you were thinking of. "Nonexistent", as the article says right now, is factual. Conway may well have misstated herself, rather than purposely lying, but either way the event she referred to is nonexistent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's factual to the extent that it makes sense to speak of an incident as "existent" or "nonexistent". I mean, people can work out what it means.  But it's a very unusual adjective to put with "incident" in English.
 * To see the problem, consider the question, does your fifth birthday exist? It's a serious metaphysical question (see presentism and block universe for opposing viewpoints), but it's just a weird question to ask at all (much less answer) in the English language. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But nonexistent can be used to mean "never existed" - e.g. describing the dinosaurs as nonexistent would not be accurate, and describing unicorns as nonexistent does not leave open the possibility of extinct unicorns. MChesterMC (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How does unhistorical grab you? "Not possessed of a historical character; not having actually occurred" (OED). --Antiquary (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonhistorical (or non-historical) also exists Wymspen (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical? Theoretical? HOTmag (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Counterfactual": "relating to or expressing what has not happened or is not the case"?--William Thweatt TalkContribs 12:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Imaginary". "Supposed".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is a thesaurus entry for the word "false". -- Jayron 32 13:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As a non-linguist, I am kinda worried most of these elegant, nuanced words will go over a lot of people's heads. They will see a bare faced lie being given the benefit of the doubt, and decide there's no smoke without fire. Seems pretty clear that's what Conway intended. --129.67.119.186 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is entirely off-topic, but personally I doubt that it was a deliberate lie. I think Conway really thought it had happened.  Too easy to check to make sense as a lie.  Also remember Hanlon's Razor. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Or not. The Big lie is a deliberate and well documented propaganda technique.  Joseph Goebbels was a particular proponent of its use.  -- Jayron 32 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea of the "big lie", as I understand it, is that people will more easily believer more outrageous lies, and this strikes me as having some psychological plausibility. But I don't think it really applies to things that are easily checked.  I suppose you can grab both edges of Hanlon's Razor and posit that Conway was applying the big-lie technique incompetently, by using it in a case where she ought to have known that it would be quickly, definitively, and publicly refuted.  But to me it seems more likely that she just had the history wrong in her own head, and now presumably knows better. --Trovatore (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you tell people that the media which should be reporting on said events is corrupt and has either a) refused to report on it or b) knew about it and deliberately covered it up. -- Jayron 32 03:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think that the BGM happened and was covered up? Well, yes, trivially, almost certainly someone does, but is there any evidence that this is the line the being promoted?  I assume not, because I would have heard about it.  Unless it had been covered up, I suppose.... --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * She herself has said she "misspoke". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Alleged? Martin. 212.178.135.35 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In the context of an event, "nonexistent" is the perfect choice, as nobody would take that to mean "the event occurred but no longer exists since it was in the past". However, for objects, "nonexistent" could indeed mean the object no longer exists, versus never existed.  So, I wouldn't refer to the "nonexistent gardens of Babylon", as it could be taken either way. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, you can work out what it must be intended to mean for events. But I stand by my statement that it's a weird adjective to use for events.  Just doesn't feel natural at all.  "Counterfactual" is another one that you can squeeze-and-stretch to fit, but also doesn't feel natural to me, as it's so closely associated with counterfactual conditionals, which this is not.  "Alleged" is wrong because it's too neutral &mdash; it's not neutral only on the speaker's intent, but also on whether it actually happened.  "Unhistorical" I think is more for theories than putative events.  I haven't seen the really canonical word yet.  Maybe there just isn't one. --Trovatore (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "nonexistent" is weird for events. Objects exist; events happen.  But there isn't an adjective like "never-happened".  I think "supposed" is the best of the choices I've seen given above, but really the solution is to not try to use a single word.  Just say that it never happened. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While its true that events "happen" rather than "exist", I think "the nonexistent Bowling Green Massacre" would be the most straightforward phrase to describe that particular non-event. Iapetus (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Italian proficiency certificate
If a non-Italian applies for a professional job in Italy, is a test or certificate of ability in the language considered important? Or would it be enough to write a good application and speak fluently at the interview? If certificates are useful, which is the best one to get? I am aware that the job market in Italy is generally bad, but for now lets assume the existence of a suitable job please! --129.67.119.186 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Different professions have different requirements - you need to be more precise. There is some general information at this EU site - http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=25 This is more specific about Italy - https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-work-experience/working-abroad/work-in-italy While fluency during an interview will certainly impress, it won't help you get the interview in the first place - for that your CV will need details of your language skills, so any certificates will help. CILS is as good as any - Certification of Italian as a Foreign Language - or CELI, PLIDA or AIL Wymspen (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
Love the song, but what does the word "drove" mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's the past tense of "to drive". --Viennese Waltz 13:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That word has many meanings, none of which makes much sense to me in the context of this song, especially in companionship with "...down". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The song is about the defeat of the South in the American Civil War. The title means that the North drove down, i.e. crushed or defeated, the South. --Viennese Waltz 14:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One meaning of "to drive" is "to push with force", such as driving nails [down]. When the forces were gathering around President Nixon in 1974, there was an editorial cartoon of Nixon singing to himself, "The night they drove old Dickie down..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To cause something to decrease rapidly. That definition is plain from the context of the song, where "Old Dixie" (the Antebellum South) was "caused to decrease rapidly" (in culture, economics, prestige, pride, etc.) by the invading Northern army (Stoneman's cavalary) caused massive destruction of local economies in their wake (tore up the tracks again).  -- Jayron 32 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Another common use of this form of "drove" is "he drove her to insanity". No motor vehicle required.  Or "you drove me to drink".  Sounds like a designated driver, but it's not.   StuRat (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As to the "down" part, it seems to be a good thing to "get down", but a bad thing for anyone else to "get me down". Apparently, getting down is a strictly solitary vice.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Get down with your bad self". :-) StuRat (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Most people, however, enjoy when someone goes down on them. -- Jayron 32 02:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The trouble with those definitions is that they'd fit better with a more generalized account of the last months of the Civil War, but not with a "night". Reading them I wondered if it was to do with the taking of Richmond Virginia, but that doesn't fit with the opening lines which are referring to an incident earlier in the war. Still struggling with this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, it's a song. It's meant to sound good. Don't go looking for historical or linguistic accuracy. --Viennese Waltz 12:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Robertson was an intelligent songwriter and from what I know of Levon Helm I don't believe he'd have had even the temporary involvement he had with this song about the South's history, if it had been inaccurate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're going with the Levon reference. He had nothing to do with the writing of the song and if you're saying he wouldn't have sung it and drummed on it if he thought it was historically inaccurate then that's a mighty strange point to make.  Anyway, funnily enough this is not the first time that the lyrics of "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" have been discussed on this ref desk, see this earlier discussion. --Viennese Waltz 12:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that he did; though he did not receive an official songwriting credit (which is more a business decision than anything), you can read numerous historical accounts from Helm, Robertson, and their chroniclers and biographers that Helm was intimately involved in researching and crafting the story behind the lyrics. See below. -- Jayron 32 15:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From our article on Helm: "Levon Helm, a native of Arkansas, stated that he assisted in the research for the lyrics.[2] In his 1993 autobiography, This Wheel's on Fire, Helm wrote, "Robbie and I worked on 'The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down' up in Woodstock. I remember taking him to the library so he could research the history and geography of the era and make General Robert E. Lee come out with all due respect."".
 * Just because Levon says he contributed to the writing of the song doesn't mean he did. His autobiography is hardly an unbiased account. That rollingstone.com link doesn't actually say he "assisted in the research", it just says he drove Robertson to the library. My copy of Barney Hoskyns's authoritative Band biography is not with me at the moment, so I can't vouch for what Hoskyns has to say on the matter. I'm just saying that in the absence of any credible alternative evidence, which I'm not seeing at the moment, we can only go by the official songwriting credit. --Viennese Waltz 08:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He felt strongly enough about Baez's cover to refuse to ever sing it again.
 * Thanks for the link! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can say that he never sung the song after Baez covered it. That's obviously wrong, Baez covered the song in 1971, he sings the song in The Last Waltz in 1976.  He never sang Baez's altered lyrics, but he did sing the song for many years after Baez came out with her version.  It is true that he never performed the song as a solo artist; there is much speculation as to why he never performed it as a solo artist, but I've never heard him make any firm statement on the matter.  Some have speculated Baez, but again, that doesn't make sense since he sang it repeatedly for at least 5 years after her.  The notion that he was in a dispute with Robertson over credits for the song is more likely, but also "he was just sick of singing it" is another plausible reason.-- Jayron 32 15:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The link you posted in that previous discussion just about nails this:
 * ''Little Brother
 * Even though I'm also relatively fussy about lyrics, and find fast, loose, and sloppy phrases or even "facts" distasteful, I don't find "May 10" terribly disturbing. The line could have been shaped to accommodate ANY date, of course. But to stretch a point, Virgil's narrative is that of a rustic, embittered man who is presumably still "in defeat". The verse opens with glimpses of military devastation and the visitation of multiple ruination: the tracks torn up AGAIN, the hard winter of starvation and mortal weariness. Then the line in question, which brackets the timeline: By May the tenth, Richmond had fell... It's not so unthinkable to interpret "Richmond" in the sense of "the Confederate Cause", rather than in the usual narrower sense of the city-as-military-objective falling. As if one were to say, "By August 6th, Tokyo fell" by way of describing the fall of Japan after the A-bomb attack. I mean, I just picture some grizzled old die-hard Johnny Reb (the very image of Levon, in recent years, in fact) saying in effect, "Shit, that winter was hell on earth, 'n' by May tenth it was ALL blown away..." Poetic license, I admit, and possibly an undetected mistake, error, slip, or oversight. But again, I can imagine Virgil/Levon rebutting criticism with an explosive roar, and a shower of spit, "Hell, I ain't readin' off no damn CALENDAR, son!" The time he remembers oh, so well, isn't necessarily the DATES he remembers. Selah.[17]


 * Those five weeks from the collapse of Richmond, the capital, to the final capture of Jefferson Davis on May 10th and the official surrender, must have been the worst, total chaos. In those days, communications were slow and unreliable. Some units would have known it was all over, others probably not. Well, Robert Palmer got May 10th first time round - that was the official surrender date, so it was the night that they indeed finally and officially drove old Dixie down''
 * Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to save anyone else the trouble, here is the link Dweller was talking about.
 * I don't really understand what happened with my search. I looked for a phrase that was likely to have few hits, and searched in Wikipedia space for "Virgil/Levon", in double quotes.  That found this discussion, and one from 14 May 2015 in Reference desk/all.  But when I followed the latter link, there was nothing relevant there.
 * However, armed with the date, I went looking in the archives, and found the discussion in one of the desks. The text "Virgil/Levon" did not appear there either, but there was the link to the The Band website, where I found it.  As I say, not sure what happened there. --Trovatore (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cyrillic translation please
In this Russian ballet video at 14:44, what do 1) the sign over the doorway at left, and 2) the banner unfurled at center mean in English? Blooteuth (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The banner reads "prazdnik Kololola" (feast of the bells) while the sign over the doorway is "КОГŻMA". I have absolutely no idea what that signs means and why it combines latin and cyrillic letters. --Xuxl (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * it's "koržma", written in all caps but with a big lowercase r and means "tavern" (Polish "karczma", Russian "корчма".) The banner says "prazdnik kolokola", which in Russian means "festival of the bell" (singular - the village is getting a new bell.) The signs are not accurate in any language, specifically not in any of the other languages spoken in the region (Galicia, where the ballet is set) which have different words for "festival" and "bell." I think they just wanted something that looked vaguely Central-Eastern European Asmrulz (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. Blooteuth (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)