Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 September 25

= September 25 =

Dutch
I've used Google-Translator, for translating an English text into Dutch. Does the translation contain any mistakes? Anyway, I need the correct translation into Dutch.

The English text is:

Please read ! Next time, please speak to me in Dutch (my native language), if you want me to respond verbally rather than in writing. Second, I knew that's what you were going to say to me, so I had already written my response, in advance. Surprising, isn't this? Anyway, for some reason, I couldn't walk on the pavement. Actually, I was trying to walk very close to it, and not in the middle of the road, because I didn't want to disturb drivers. If you think I failed, I apologize from the bottom of my heart. Have a nice day. Goodbye.

Google translator output the following Dutch text:

Gelieve te lezen ! Volg de volgende keer alsjeblieft met mij in het Nederlands (mijn moedertaal), als je wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer. Ten tweede, ik wist dat je dat tegen me zou zeggen, dus ik had al mijn reactie al eerder geschreven. Verrassend, is dit niet? Hoe dan ook, om een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen. Eigenlijk probeerde ik heel dichtbij te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik de bestuurders niet wilde storen. Als u denkt dat ik mislukt, verontschuldig ik me van mijn hart. Een fijne dag toegewenst. Vaarwel.

185.46.78.132 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Doing the "round trip", Google translates this back into English as


 * "I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it," he said, "I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do." een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen Eigenlijk probeerde ik heel dichtbij te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik de bestuurders niet wilde storen. Een fijne dag toegewenst Vaarwel


 * This is not remotely like the original English, and the untranslated Dutch indicates that the translation was so poor that Google could not understand it. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I need the correct translation into Dutch. 185.46.78.132 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Google Translate is still quite hopeless at producing grammatical translations. I don't know Dutch, but no matter the languages involved, the answer will always be "yes", it contains mistakes. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly interested in the correct translation, rather than in the accuracy of the above translation. Actually, I've always been aware of the difficulty in mechanical translations (Indeed, I asked whether the above translation contained mistakes, but that's because sometimes the mechanical translations are reasonable, at least in rare cases). 185.46.78.132 (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * x2:Even if you use a human it can still go wrong .  There are other machine translation services, example .   SYSTRAN gives

Gelieve te lezen! De volgende tijd, gelieve te spreken aan me in het Nederlands (mijnmoedertaal), als u me mondeling eerder dan in hetschrijven wilt antwoorden. Ten tweede, wist het ikdie ben wat u aan me ging zeggen, zodat had ikreeds mijn reactie, vooraf geschreven. Hetverrassen, is niet dit? In elk geval, met een bepaalde bedoeling, kon ik niet op de bestratinglopen. Eigenlijk, probeerde ik om zeer dicht aanhet, en niet in het midden van de weg te lopen,omdat ik geen bestuurders wilde storen. Als udenkt ontbrak ik, verontschuldig ik me van debodem van mijn hart. Heb een aardige dag.Vaarwel.

while Bing gives

Gelieve te lezen! Volgende keer, gelieve te spreken mij in het Nederlands (mijn moedertaal), als u wilt dat ik mondeling eerder dan schriftelijk reageren. Ten tweede, ik wist dat dat is wat u wilde zeggen tegen mij, dus ik had mijn reactie, bij voorbaat al geschreven. Verrassend, is dit niet? Anyway, voor sommige reden, ik kon niet lopen op de stoep. Eigenlijk, ik probeerde te lopen zeer dicht bij het, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik niet wilde verstoren van stuurprogramma's. Als u denkt dat ik niet dat, ik verontschuldig me uit het diepst van mijn hart. Een prettige dag. Vaarwel.

To show what you're up against, here's the official English version of an EU regulation:

The processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union should also be subject to this Regulation when it is related to the monitoring of the behaviour of such data subjects in so far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. In order to determine whether a processing activity can be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, it should be ascertained whether natural persons are tracked on the internet including potential subsequent use of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours and attitudes.

This is what Google made of the official Dutch version:

Processing of personal data of persons involved in the Union by a non-EU-based processing officer or processor must also be covered by this Regulation when related to to monitor the behavior of the persons concerned as far as they are within the Union. To figure out Whether a processing can be considered as controlling the behavior of stakeholders should be whether or not natural persons are being tracked on the Internet, and in particular or in that connection Personal data processing techniques are used to create a profile of a natural one person, in particular to make decisions regarding him or to his personal preferences, conducting or predicting behaviors and attitudes.
 * I would make the following corrections to the google translation (Dutch is my native language):
 * Gelieve te lezen ! Lees dit alstublieft! Volg de volgende keer alsjeblieft met mij in het Nederlands (mijn moedertaal), Praat de volgende keer alstublieft Nederlands (mijn moedertaal) tegen me, als je u wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer. Ten tweede, ik wist wist ik dat je u dat tegen me zou zeggen, dus ik had al mijn reactie al eerder geschreven. Verrassend, is dit niet nietwaar ? Hoe dan ook, om een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen. Eigenlijk probeerde ik heel dichtbij er vlak langs te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik de bestuurders automobilisten niet wilde storen hinderen . Als u denkt dat ik mislukt dat toch heb gedaan, verontschuldig ik me mij van mijn hart harte . Een fijne dag toegewenst. Vaarwel.
 * Note that I used formal (polite) pronouns (i.e. u instead of je), which is appropriate for addressing strangers, and I removed 'goodbye' at the end, because it seems (in Dutch at least) out of place at the end of a written note. - Lindert (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, your translation is as follows:
 * Lees dit alstublieft! Praat de volgende keer alstublieft Nederlands (mijn moedertaal) tegen me, als u wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer. Ten tweede, wist ik dat u dat zou zeggen, dus ik had mijn reactie al eerder geschreven. Verrassend, nietwaar? Hoe dan ook, om een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen. Eigenlijk probeerde ik er vlak langs te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik automobilisten niet wilde hinderen. Als u denkt dat ik dat toch heb gedaan, verontschuldig ik mij van harte. Een fijne dag toegewenst.
 * Please notice, that Google translates it into English as follows:
 * Please read this! Please speak Dutch (my native language) next time if you want to respond to me orally and not in writing. Secondly, I knew you would say that, so I had written my response before. Surprisingly, right? Anyway, for some reason, I could not walk on the sidewalk. In fact, I tried to walk along, not in the middle of the road, because I did not want to hinder motorists. If you think I've done that, I sincerely apologize. Enjoy your day.
 * I've noticed the following discrepancies:
 * 1. als u wilt dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer, is translated by Google into: if you want to respond to me orally and not in writing.
 * 2. Verrassend is translated by Google into: Surprisigly.
 * 3. Eigenlijk probeerde ik er vlak langs te lopen, is translated by Google into: In fact, I tried to walk along.
 * 4. Als u denkt dat ik dat toch heb gedaan, is translated by Google into: If you think I've done that.

185.46.76.57 (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) This is simply a mistake by Google Translate. Ik means I, not to me
 * 2) Dutch adjectives and adverbs are usually identical in form, so 'surprising and surprisingly are both valid translations of verrassend. Google doesn't understand the context which requires the translation surprising here.
 * 3) The Dutch is referring back to the 'pavement' with the word er, so it's saying that the writer tried to walk very close to the pavement. Google translate misses this back-reference. The word langs which is translated by along is better translated as alongside.
 * 4) This part required a non-literal translation in order to avoid and unnatural sounding and confusing Dutch sentence. The English text referring to failing, is interpreted by me as a failure to walk very close to the pavement and thus an inadvertent disturbing of drivers. The Dutch is saying more literally: "if you think that I nonetheless did that [i.e. hinder/disturb drivers by walking too close to the middle of the road], I apolgize ..." - Lindert (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. By the way, is it a mistake to say: Gelieve te lezen? (you've replaced it by Lees dit alstublieft, but I would rather use "je" instead of "u"). Additionally, if I change back all "u" by "je", will I have to make other grammatical changes? 185.46.76.57 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "is it a mistake to say: Gelieve te lezen?" No, but it's a bit archaic.
 * Replacing u with je is fine, I would change one verb form (wilt becomes wil), also replace alstublieft with alsjeblieft. The translation would then read:
 * Lees dit alsjeblieft! Praat de volgende keer alsjeblieft Nederlands (mijn moedertaal) tegen me, als je wil dat ik mondeling en niet schriftelijk reageer. Ten tweede, wist ik dat je dat zou zeggen, dus ik had mijn reactie al eerder geschreven. Verrassend, nietwaar? Hoe dan ook, om een of andere reden kon ik niet op het trottoir lopen. Eigenlijk probeerde ik er vlak langs te lopen, en niet in het midden van de weg, omdat ik automobilisten niet wilde hinderen. Als je denkt dat ik dat toch heb gedaan, verontschuldig ik mij van harte. Een fijne dag toegewenst. - Lindert (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 185.46.76.57 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldest living language
What's the oldest living language is it Tamil or another language -- 16:03, 25 September 2017 24.97.253.174


 * Please sign your post with four tildes. Tamil. Hebrew. Chinese. Greek. Etc. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since all languages change over time, this will all be a question of how much change you would say qualifies it as a new language. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Tamil, is known to be the oldest one (about 7000 years ago), but maybe there are living languages about whose being older than Tamil we don't know. 185.46.77.40 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Neanderthals are believed to have language. So, Neanderthal, as far as I know, would be the oldest language, assuming that we extend beyond the Homo sapiens species. Plants and other animals can communicate. That would mean plants would have the oldest language. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * But do we know if they had one language or many ? Without written records, this may be impossible to determine. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Tamil is certainly very old but there's no way it's 7000 years old. Oldest languages lists them by the earlier written attestations, and I suppose Tamil might be at the top of the list of still-living languages depending on how you define it...it's a bit misleading to say that modern Tamil is the same as Old Tamil, but people will happily claim they are the same language simply because we still use the same name for it, similar to Greek or Arabic (but unlike, say, Latin, which is now called various other languages). It's also important to note that there are dubious political reasons for claiming that Tamil (or any other language) is the oldest language. I thought we had an article about politicizing languages like that but I can't find it now... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe Language politics? (in need of some love though). Language policy is a little better. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And for Tamil specifically, Tamil nationalism and the related articles linked therein. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * [Edit Conflict] Our article Tamil language states that ". . . proto-Tamil emerged around the 3rd century BC", and some "Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions from 500 BC" are mentioned, which would make it less than 3,000 years old. Of course it descended by gradual change (or evolution, if you prefer) from older antecedents, but this is true of all natural languages. Proto-Dravidian (the articles suggest) began to diversify in the 3rd millennium BC or about 5,000 years ago: Tamil is a descendent of this (as are various other languages), but it is not the same language. This is not to diminish the unquestionably venerability of Tamil literature, which is indeed amongst the oldest continuous literary traditions in the World. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.115.180 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

24.97.253.174 -- I'm afraid that this is one of those questions which laymen are often interested in, but which professional linguists find to be almost meaningless in the way that it is usually asked. All languages that are being spoken for everyday purposes by a community of speakers are subject to change over time. (A language which is only liturgically recited from a fixed sacred text, and not used for other purposes, is not a "living" language".) As for Tamil, this has been discussed at length on Talk:Classical language and its archives. The extravagant theories of Devaneya Pavanar are not accepted in reputable scholarly sources, and according to The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages ISBN 0-521-56256-2 the date of the earliest surviving Tamil-language literature is more like 200 BC... AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

so its Greek thats the oldest living language and not Tamil according to the oldest language article -- 25 September 2017 71.168.85.165


 * No, all living languages that are not conlangs or creoles are equally old. It's the same with living organisms.  Anything that is alive now is descended from the earliest common ancestor so there are no organisms that have shorter or longer pedigrees than any other. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There certainly are some species which are older than others. That is, just like languages, before a certain point the ancestors are considered to have been a different species. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a matter of human terminology, not of actual ontology. All living organisms have a pedigree of the exact same age, except for hybrids, if you want to pick nits, although their parents still originated from the same original ancestor. Mistaking our names for reality is a common fallacy, but not one actual biologists espouse.  Humans, Coelacanths and Oaks all date back to the same common ancestor, and their bloodlines have the same timeline.  μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No, at least with sexually reproduction, it's not just a matter of terminology, it's defined as a different species if it can't reproduce with the current species. I agree that with asexual species, the definition is more problematic. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Having the Slightest Clue About Your Chosen Topic department refers you to Species. HenryFlower 07:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Dead languages can come alive, e.g. Hebrew.  With a parallel history to Hebrew, Latin could also be classed as a living language. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really. Living languages are defined as languages which evolve because they are in active use, because they have native speakers who use it in the modern world, and as such Latin really doesn't qualify.  Modern Hebrew has about 5 million native speakers, mostly in Israel where it is a language of every-day use.  There's probably a few weird parents who have raised their children speaking Latin, but it is not a language with a native community of speakers.  No one hails a cab in Latin or chats up the shop keeper down the road in latin, or discusses politics in the local pub with strangers in Latin.  As noted above, insofar as Latin is still "alive", it is called French and Spanish and Romanian and the like.  Modern variants of languages frequently claimed as particularly old, such as Tamil or Greek or the like are about as close to their ancient versions as is French to Latin.  -- Jayron 32 17:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As I recall, when Pope Benedict announced his resignation, one of the Rome newspapers had a scoop because the reporter who was present happened to speak Latin.  And how do you think those prelates from all over the world communicate with each other when they come together?  92.8.220.234 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most probably those prelates speak either Italian or English (or also Spanish, Portuguese and French, as these languages are spoken by the majority of Catholics). Thus Latin in the Church is rather a written language, not spoken. Public official announcements in Latin is not the same as routinely speaking in it (but no doubt some people in the Church can do this feat). --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See Contemporary Latin for modern usage. I know a few people (from Wikipedia and in real life) who can hold conversations in Latin. There is a "Conventinculum" where they can converse with other Latin speakers. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * People also carry on conversations in Klingon and Quenya. Until people are using at a standard means of communication, within a speech community, for every day use, all the time, for mundane every day life, it STILL isn't a living language, it's just a goofy hobby.  Contemporary Latin is still not a "living" language.  -- Jayron 32 23:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re 92.8.220.234: Modern Hebrew differs from Ancient Hebrew in too many ways, so they are definitely not the same thing. If we narrow our definition, Latin, if not the oldest living language, is certainly the oldest language still in use. The Vatican continues publishing new materials in it.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Classical Chinese is not too far behind. It is used in the Far Eastern countries. Chinese four-character idioms are sometimes derived from ancient Classical Chinese stories or sayings. Family trees too. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Любослов Езыкин -- If you take Mishnaic Hebrew as the starting point (rather than Biblical Hebrew), then the discrepancies between ancient Hebrew and modern Israeli are significantly fewer (though there are still obviously many differences)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again, we're getting the fallacies of laymen presented as facts. Linear B Greek, Attic and modern Greek are all mutually unintelligible, even though they are genetically identical.  The Same with Elephants and fish.  It's absurd to apply human concepts to reality, as if reality depended on those concepts.  All organisms and all languages except in very special circumstances have the exact same age.  Elephants are derived but they are in no way newer than Coelacanths. As a trained biologist and linguist, I laugh in your general direction. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Medeis -- the big changes in pronunciation during Late Antiquity and the early medieval period (aspirates to fricatives, voiced stops to fricatives, many vowels to [i] etc.) would be a strong bar to mutual intelligibility between different historical stages of the spoken Greek language, but you can get a little farther if you confine yourself to written language alone (that was the purpose of Katharevousa)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * offtopic - Nikolay Trubetzkoy says in Common Slavic Element in Russian Culture" that Russian is the most direct descendant of OCS (it's still over five or six hops, but other languages have even more) and also the only meaningful and quantifiable way in which Russians (and presumably other Slavs and their respective languages) are part of the wider Slavicdom. 78.53.241.14 (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Old Church Slavonic was originally a language spoken in what is now parts of northern Greece, southern Macedonia, and southern Bulgaria, written down at a time when there was some substantial degree of mutual intelligibility between the Slavic languages. I'm not sure why modern Russian would be considered to have the closest relationship to it among modern languages.  Modern Bulgarian has a greatly reduced noun inflection system, and participates in the Balkan sprachbund, but is said to have a fairly conservative verb system... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of Katharevousa. With its resistance to spelling reform since Middle English, we have a similar circumstance with our language--spelling is archaic and words are not pronounced as spelt, but written literature is mutually comprehensible across the Anglosphere.
 * As for Russian being closest to OCS, well, first, OCS is not proto-Slavic, but rather a very early South Slavic dialect used as a proxy, given it has extant texts. Second, How do you deal with the Russian loss of the aorist, the loss of "to be" as a copula in the present, ikane, akane, the masculine genitive accusative, and other innovations not found in more conservative dialects?  Trubetzkoy is entitled to his subjective opinion, but it's a very hard argument to make. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * For various types of linguistic nationalism you might want to look at Goropianism, Sun language theory, Japhetic theory and Turkish language reform. After the establishment of the Turkish republic under Ataturk, Persian and Arabic and other loanwords of long provenance were replaced by coinages from old Turkic roots that had not been used for centuries.  Other foreign words were kept, but fake etymologies were made up for them out of pseudo-Turkish.  It would be like the US claiming in 1776 that the real etymology of America was < A-miracle.
 * There are plenty of instances also of languages without transparently close relatives being given bizarre supposed origins. Some have claimed that Hungarian (whose closest relatives, Khanty and Mansi are spoken in Siberia) actually comes from Sumerian (!), the evidence being that Hungarian is unique and Sumerian is unique so pride dictates that they be related.  There's also the absurd claim that Albanian is derived from Etruscan.  Until the last century, Armenian, Japanese, Korean and Chinese, among others, were all treated as sui generis by domestic linguists for nationalist reasons.  This is by no means the end of the list of such fringe theories. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another relevant article for Tamil - Elamo-Dravidian languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Brammer
What is "a brammer"? Is it only Scotch word? My neighbour say it mean "very good" or "fine example". 86.175.165.180 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wonder if it comes from admiration of the works of Bram Stoker (that is, the belief that his novels didn't suck). StuRat (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, . Google 'brammer scots' for more. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. See Scottish Word of the Day: Brammer. BYW, "Scotch" is archaic for any other purpose than describing whisky and a few other traditional products. "Scots" or "Scottish" is much preferred nowadays. Those from North of the Border have been known to become extremely agitated by incorrect usage (see Scotch (adjective)). Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Scotch tape, butterscotch, hopscotch (though "scotch" in that one refers to a line, not a Scot). Scotch are objects, Scots are people. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Scotch tape is not Scottish, but American. It is little known in the UK: the brand-name-that-has-become-generic here is Sellotape. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Supposedly it got its name from the alleged "stinginess" of glue on its original incarnation, and they use pseudo-tartan colorations in their packaging. And generically it's cellophane tape. But Scotch Tape, like Kleenex or Xerox, has become a "generic" product name among the populace. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Scotty McTape, a kilt-wearing cartoon boy, was the brand's mascot for two decades, first appearing in 1944." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I would have named him Michael McMillian, so that there would be 3 M's in his name. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Scotch is also a verb. One "scotches a rumour".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that relates to the "hopscotch" usage, in which "scotch" is equivalent to "scratch" as in to draw a line. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's quite uncertain that the word butterscotch has anything to do with Scotland; see here. It's just as likely that it's another example of the "scratch" sense, or even invoves an alteration of scorch. Deor (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * My grandmother was born in Scotland, but had an English surname, so I figure, on average, that I have about a fifth of Scotch in me at any given time. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Brammer is also a British surname which, it is claimed, ... comes from a family once having lived in Bramhall in Greater Manchester. Bromale was a township in the parish of Stockport. Although ancestry.co.uk offers a few other alternatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The article linked above from The Scotsman suggests that the slang word might be derived from Brahma, although that seems a bit of a stretch to me. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)