Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 November 8

= November 8 =

Can someone help translate the Wiccan rede article into Chinese and the Wiccan rede itself?
I have tried by using google but have only gotten so far I believe "威卡教 課堂" Wicca lesson might be the best translation for rede but what about the poem itself? I would love to have some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.79.57 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's the full text:

Bide within the Law you must, in perfect Love and perfect Trust. Live you must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give.

For tread the Circle thrice about to keep unwelcome spirits out. To bind the spell well every time, let the spell be said in rhyme.

Light of eye and soft of touch, speak you little, listen much. Honor the Old Ones in deed and name, let love and light be our guides again.

Deosil go by the waxing moon, chanting out the joyful tune. Widdershins go when the moon doth wane, and the werewolf howls by the dread wolfsbane.

When the Lady's moon is new, kiss the hand to Her times two. When the moon rides at Her peak then your heart's desire seek.

Heed the North winds mighty gale, lock the door and trim the sail. When the Wind blows from the East, expect the new and set the feast.

When the wind comes from the South, love will kiss you on the mouth. When the wind whispers from the West, all hearts will find peace and rest.

Nine woods in the Cauldron go, burn them fast and burn them slow. Birch in the fire goes to represent what the Lady knows.

Oak in the forest towers with might, in the fire it brings the God's insight. Rowan is a tree of power causing life and magick to flower.

Willows at the waterside stand ready to help us to the Summerland. Hawthorn is burned to purify and to draw faerie to your eye.

Hazel-the tree of wisdom and learning adds its strength to the bright fire burning. White are the flowers of Apple tree that brings us fruits of fertility.

Grapes grow upon the vine giving us both joy and wine. Fir does mark the evergreen to represent immortality seen.

Elder is the Lady's tree burn it not or cursed you'll be. Four times the Major Sabbats mark in the light and in the dark.

As the old year starts to wane the new begins, it's now Samhain. When the time for Imbolc shows watch for flowers through the snows.

When the wheel begins to turn soon the Beltane fires will burn. As the wheel turns to Lamas night power is brought to magick rite.

Four times the Minor Sabbats fall use the Sun to mark them all. When the wheel has turned to Yule light the log the Horned One rules.

In the spring, when night equals day time for Ostara to come our way. When the Sun has reached it's height time for Oak and Holly to fight.

Harvesting comes to one and all when the Autumn Equinox does fall. Heed the flower, bush, and tree by the Lady blessed you'll be.

Where the rippling waters go cast a stone, the truth you'll know. When you have and hold a need, harken not to others greed.

With a fool no season spend or be counted as his friend. Merry Meet and Merry Part bright the cheeks and warm the heart.

Mind the Three-fold Laws you should three times bad and three times good. When misfortune is enow wear the star upon your brow.

Be true in love this you must do unless your love is false to you.

These Eight words the Rede fulfill:

"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.79.57 (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Translators available is a good place to find Wikipedia translators. -- Jayron 32 11:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What is the source of this text? How do we know it is not under copyright?  I am going to collapse most of it due to length and out of caution. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a random internet user's translation, which I would suggest is probably as good as what you will get from a random Wikipedian. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't read the Chinese, but that article cites two English-named people, one who died in '46, the other '64. So we can't assume automatically that this is in the public domain. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On that page the two English-named people are referred to in the following contexts: Adriana Porter (the one who died in '46) is thought by some to be the author; but Gerald Gardner (the one who died in '64) thought it that it originated from a novel called "Good King Pausole". Information that appears to be taken from the English Wikipedia article or a similar source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The wiccan rede dates back to the 1930s and is a religious text I don't think its copywritten.108.75.79.57 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt you, but only works from 1923 or before (i.e., 95 years old) are guaranteed to be in the public domain, and we'd still need the original source. As a friendly FYI, the concept is the "right to copy", so the terms are copyright and copyrighted, although copywritten does sound nicer.  I myself have also worked as a copywriter, but that's someone who writes the text for advertisements and blurbs and such, usually without credit or as "staff". μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Off topic, but that's not true. In most countries the rule is life + 70, there is no guarantee that a work from before 1923 is free of copyright. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If something was published in the United States before 1923, then it's almost always out of copyright in the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it seems to be a common misconception among some that the United States is the same as the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, bugger off. Any excuse for anti-American bigotry?  The user geolocates to California, Wikipedia is governed by US law, and yes, frankly, the free world is an American protectorate, and has been through thee world wars.  You know very well I am no ignoramus or xenophobe. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Liability for copyright infringement does not depend on one's physical location, or the location of the servers of the website one is using to post infringing material. If you didn't know this, fine, I hope that's a helpful explanation. If you do, then you may not be a xenophobe but the comment betrays your US-centric mindframe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

An American answering an American user on an American website governed by American and Floridian law is US-Centric? Eto polno govno. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * very interesting, is that in the wiktionary? the origin of the rede is up to debate several people all now dead claim to have written it108.75.79.57 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there some threat that prevents you from naming these people or mentioning the actual book or website where you have gotten this information? You seem to be obfuscating on purpose, as you are putting more effort into avoiding than answering a direct request for your source(s).  Given you know what wiktionary is, read the guidelines at the top of the page that say in part that you need to do such basic research on your own. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * don't be unbeguiling now108.75.79.57 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Katakana script
Hi, anyone knowledgeable about katakana script, please comment at Talk:Katakana/Archives/2017. Thanks 86.190.171.142 (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Given that Katakana is used in 3 languages other than Japanese, I agree with Christoph Paper, the current organisation is correct, and I don't see how it is unhelpful. Remember Wikipedia is not a manual to learn languages. --Lgriot (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the following construction grammatical in English? + "him" +
185.46.77.39 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Modern English really doesn't have a subjunctive conjugation in any reasonable "synchronic" functional analysis (as linguists would say). There are only a few constructions with unexpected verb forms (mainly "If I were"/"If he were", and also "I insist that he be removed"), and some archaic isolated relics ("albeit" etc.).  There's no real connection between these as far as current language usage goes (i.e. unless you invoke history of earlier stages of the language which the great majority of speakers of current-day English don't know about).
 * By contrast, the "accusative with infinitive" construction discussed in the previous section above is very "productive" in modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * When AnonMoos is using the word "productive", the article Productivity (linguistics) may provide some context. -- Jayron 32 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I strongly dispute Anonmoos's claim that the subjunctive is not productive in Modern English. Maybe so in Britain or where Anonmoos lives, but I hear the present subjunctive all the time, so much so that usages like "I recommend that he sees a doctor first" would be highly jarring, and even uneducated speakers in the Mid-Atlantic use the subjunctive properly in such cases to the point of virtual universality. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Medeis -- The few specific constructions in modern English where anomalous verbs are used are pretty well established, and probably aren't going away anytime soon. However, what is extremely dubious is that these little anomalies could be connected into anything that could be meaningfully called a subjunctive verb conjugation, in terms of non-historical analysis of the modern language only.  I would strongly deny it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was trying to write something like that, interpreting what you had said, in response to Medeis, but it was over airport wifi and it didn't get saved. I agree, if you look at 21st-century English in isolation, it's hard to make a case that "if I were a rich man" and "it is important that he take this course of action" are instances of the same phenomenon.
 * What's not clear to me is that looking at 21st-century English in isolation is a correct or useful restriction. Why should we not look cross-linguistically, and use paradigms that make sense for multiple languages?  Doing so has at least some advantage if you want to learn those languages. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) It's hard to follow what you are asking without a specific example of a sentance structure, but if you want to learn more about the use of the subjunctive mood in English, Wikipedia has an article titled English subjunctive that will help you. -- Jayron 32 11:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OP's response: Unfortunately, neither of you has directly referred to my specific question...

( @AnonMoos and @Jayron, how the hell can our articles accusative and infinitive or English subjunctive help me solve my problem?)

So let me discuss it a bit...

As I wrote, I'm looking for a grammatical construction of the form: + "him" +. In order for you to understand better what I mean, let's have a look at two constructions, similar (yet not identical) to the one I'm looking for: The first example, "they let him go ", contains the form: + "him " + (Why infinitive? because that sentence means "they enabled/allowed him to go ", wherein the "to " is an indicative sign of the infinitive). So this form is similar to the one I'm looking for, yet not identical to it. On the other hand, the second example, "they insist he go ", contains the form: + "he " + (Why subjunctive? Because it follows "he ", rather than "him ", hence it can't be an infinitive, so the only choice left is subjunctive; that being a formal reason, besides the obvious semantic reason).
 * "they let him go ".
 * "they insist he go ".

Back to my original question: Is there a grammatical construction of the form: + "him" + ? 185.46.77.39 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * in English, any verb following an accusative (without a comma between both words), cannot be a subjunctive, and must be an infinitive, period. E.g. the subjunctive "were" can follow the word "he", but cannot follow the word "him" (unless there is a comma between both words, e.g. in the sentence: If she, who hates him, were his neighbor, he would suffer very much).
 * Indeed, sometimes, it's not clear whether the word followed by the verb is an accusative or a nominative: e.g. in the sentence: I see the people go; It may mean: I see they (=the people) go, so the "go" is in the Present Simple; However, the sentence may also mean: I see them (=the people) go, in which case the "go" must be an infinitive, and cannot be a subjunctive (nor can it be in the Present Simple). HOTmag (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with this sort of language analysis is that it was developed for highly inflected languages like, say, Latin. English just isn't that inflected.  Among standard constructions, for example, there are basically only 4 standard verb endings (-∅, -s, -ed, -ing, and, i.e. cover, covers, covered, covering) and that means that the same word has to do a LOT of work in English, so trying to analyze whether a particular verb plays a specific role in a sentence comes down more to context than anything else.  The specific example the OP seems to be asking about is "They insist him go", which is not standard English, that is it is marked as such and native speakers would find it odd.  One common way to analyze sentences like this is to understand that English can drop the connector word "that" from relative clauses, so the sentence "They insist he go" can be analyzed as "They insist (that) he go".  -- Jayron 32 12:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * English in a synchronic analysis may not be all that inflected, but diachronically it was, and the subjunctive and infinitive formations descend from a time when the forms were distinct. If we were to insist that only synchronic analyses were allowed, we might as well argue that whores are farm instruments, and suggest "plowing" as their commonality.  It would be synchronic, and it would totally miss reality, educated usage, and scholarly philology. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what that's supposed to mean. Historical and comparative analysis can help elucidate things in many cases of course, but if there's nothing in the contemporary modern language itself to connect phenomenon A in the language and phenomenon B in the language, then the connection between the two does not have any "psychological reality" for speakers of the modern language -- no matter how closely A and B are connected historically and comparatively.
 * If you try to construct a "subjunctive" verb conjugation chart for modern English, then it's really quite threadbare. The past subjunctive would only have distinct verb forms from the past indicative in the 1st person singular and the 3rd person singular of "to be" -- and nothing else.  The present subjunctive would always be identical in form with the infinitive, which means that in verbs other than "to be", only the 3rd person singular of the present subjunctive would have a distinct verb form from the present indicative.
 * That's why it makes a lot more sense to me just to say that certain anomalous verb forms are used in certain specific constructions, without trying to slap a "subjunctive" label on them, which doesn't usefully explain much within modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not only the past subjunctive of "to be". Check: "they be", "he go".
 * Actually, the subjunctive and the infinitive in English are distinguishable from each other, by some ways: semantically, syntactically and morphologically.
 * Semantically, by the meaning of the verb, which is determined by the context, that is determined by the meaning of other words in the sentence, e.g. "insist" and "let", so that "I insist you go" ends with a subjunctive - because of the meaning of "insist", whereas "I let you go" ends with an infinitive - because of the meaning of "let".
 * Syntactically, by the case of the pronoun followed by the verb, so that if the pronoun is in the nominative case (e.g. "they") then - the following verb (e.g. "go") cannot be an infinitive - and must be either a subjunctive (e.g. in "it's important that they go") or a verb in a regular tense (e.g. in "I see they go"), whereas if that pronoun is in the accusative case (e.g. "them") then - that following verb cannot be a subjunctive (nor any verb in any regular tense) - and must be an infinitive (e.g. in "I see them go").
 * Morphologically. On one hand, some morphological forms like "he goes" "they are" "I was", can be neither infinitives nor subjunctives, and must be verbs in regular tenses. On the other hand, some morphological forms like "he go", "they be", "I were", cannot be infinitives - nor any verbs in any regular tense - and must be subjunctives.
 * HOTmag (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * HOTmag -- As I said above, if you try to create a chart of subjunctive verb conjugation for modern English, the past subjunctive would be distinct from the past indicative only for certain person/number combinations of "to be", while the present subjunctive would be distinct from the present indicative only for "to be", and third-person singular forms of other verbs. It's pretty thin gruel on which to build a whole theory of a contrast between a general verb indicative mood and verb subjective mood in modern English -- especially since the distinctively inflected subjunctive verbs only appear in a few very specific and narrowly-defined syntactic constructions.  The putative present subjunctive has the same form as the infinitive, but I'm not sure there's any deep significance to this, since (with the single exception of the super-irregular verb "to be"), English verbs have a maximum of 5 distinct forms in their conjugation (regular verbs have only 4 -- "walk", "walks", "walked", "walking").
 * I don't necessarily object to using "subjunctive" merely as a handy convenient historically-based label for the anomalous modern English verb forms found in certain constructions, but this unfortunately has the potential of misleading people into thinking that there's a real subjunctive verb conjugation in modern English (which there isn't). 185.46.77.39 above certainly seems to be confused on this point, and he/she would probably perceive things more clearly if he/she had never heard the term "subjunctive" in relation to modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I fink AnonMoos's memory hole approach to human knowledge and praxis has quite a bit of merit. Given vat most people alive today were born PS (Post-Simpsons) it would seem to be makin' sense to burn all da prints of Bewitched and Are You Being Served, and any book published befo da advent of da interweb and carphones.  We could tear down some monuments, and behead, I mean give a morphine drip, I mean a fentanyl overdose, to anyone over firty.  I'm lovin' it. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- synchronic-functional linguistic analysis is just as valid as historical-comparative linguistic analysis. Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other -- they just ask different questions and pursue different methods.  This has been solidly established ever since the time of Saussure, which was over a century ago (the Cours de linguistique générale was first published in 1916, and has had two separate translations into English).  Pretending that synchronic-functional linguistic analysis is somehow equivalent to illiteracy is something I would expect from someone who was trying to be a traditional prescriptivist language pundit, but lacked sufficient knowledge to do so... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly motivated to take anyone who begins with "whatever" seriously as a scholar or an adult, but yes, I have read Saussure, and his prediction of the laryngeal theory is up there with Einstein and Darwin in my book. But his insistence on synchronic analysis is not universally accepted.  My speech community has included those born before 1900 and those after 2010.  I certainly don't think that the English I speak in my sixth decade is a different one from what I spoke in my first, even though the phonology, vocabulary and syntax have all changed.  The bottom line is that your contempt is not an argument, and name-dropping aside, doesn't need to be treated seriously what(so)ever. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Anyways, the verb "be" has six forms: "it is" (Present Indicative), "it be" (Present Subjunctive), "it is being" (Present Participle), "it was" (Past Indicative), "it were" (Past Subjunctive), "it has been" (Past Participle). Now we have to think about how we should call the last word of "let it be". Shouldn't it be called "infinitive"? If it's an infinitive, then "I insist that it be" can't be called "infinitive", because it's the Present analogue of "I wish it were" - being Past Subjunctive, so "I insist that it be" - should be called Present Subjunctive, shouldn't it? HOTmag (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * HOTmag -- the verb "to be" has 8 distinct inflectional forms in modern English: be, am, is, are, was, were, being, been (twice as many as a regular verb). The last words of "let it be" and "I wish it were" have completely different status in any usual grammatical analysis -- if you translate literalistically into basic Latin (sinite id esse, volo ut ita foret), the first has an infinitive inflection, the second doesn't.  If anything is subjunctive in "let it be", it would be "let" (not "be").  It's not usually called that in English, but that or similar terms indicating non-indicative mood can be used in referring to parallel constructions in other languages... AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As for "am" and "are": Of course, but I was referring to the six forms of a specific pronoun, e.g. "it" - as it is in the six examples I gave (sorry for not having made it clearer in my previous post).
 * As for last words of "let it be" and "I wish it were": Of course (as you said) "they have completely different status in any usual grammatical analysis", did I say otherwise? I've only claimed that "I insist that it be" can't be called "infinitive", because it's the Present analogue of "I wish it were" - being Past Subjunctive, so "I insist that it be" - should be called Present Subjunctive. That's what I claimed, so it seems that English has both a Present Subjunctive form (as in "I insist that it be"), and an Infinitive form (as in "let it be"). If you agree with me, then we shouldn't have started arguing about the subjunctive-infinitive issue. HOTmag (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a stunning amount of confusion above (as well as some sensible comments). Anyway, with the exception of a few defective verbs (modals, USE /jus/, BEWARE, and perhaps some other freaks I can't immediately think of), English verbs have a plain form and a plain present [non-3rd-person-singular] form; and other than for BE, the two appear exactly the same. The plain form is used in infinitival clauses ("We helped him push the car"); it's used in mandative subjunctives ("They insist that he go"); and it's occasionally encountered in miscellaneous minor archaisms. BE also has "irrealis 'were'" ("If he were honorable,..."), a remnant of a subjunctive system. So, to the question. "I'll have him go there" has GO in the plain form, although (because it's not BE) it's indistinguishable from the plain present form. (In "I'll have him be on time", BE is obviously in the plain form.) No descriptive grammar I'm familiar with would call it subjunctive. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)