Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 August 23

< August 22	Language desk archive	August 24 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

English Definition to a Latin Phrase

How does the Latin phrase "et nihil humanum" translate into English?

the whole phrase is something like Homo sum et nihil humanum a me alienum esse puto (there are variants), search it on google and you can get its meaning and source. the phrase was meant to be comical originally...--K.C. Tang 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German for 'to move'

Hello, I would like to know the German word for 'to move' in the context of moving a parked car, say for example in order to avoid a parking fine (that's not my situation, fortunately). There are so many words for 'to move' in my dictionary - absetzen, antreiben, auslenken, bewegen, erregen, umsetzen, umziehen, verfahren, wegfahren, verholen, verruecken, verschieben, versetzen, verstellen - that I don't know where to turn. Better still, if someone could provide a brief gloss on the contexts in which one would use some of the above verbs, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much. --Richardrj 05:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think 'verschieben', but I'm not German and not sure. Googling 'wagen verschieben' looks promising. DirkvdM 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Verschieben" sounds a bit like you're pushing it rather than driving it out of the way. "Wegfahren" is probably best in this context; it literally means "drive away". You could probably also use "umparken" to mean "park somewhere else". User:Angr 07:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much! Angr, you are proving to be a lifeline in my faltering attempts to learn German! --Richardrj 07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That'll be €5. ;-) User:Angr 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down old reference

Hi

I've asked this on the science desk too, but you might be better with navigating literature trails over here.

Poulletier de la Salle discovered cholesterol from gall stones (and bile?) in 1769, and I want to find the original 'article' although they probably didn't have journals back then. Can you suggest how I might track it down to quote from it?

Thanks very much for you help. I appreciate it!

Aaadddaaammm 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"pulled the fancy bows tight"

Hello! I'm thinking of what the expression pulled the fancy bows tight in the following sentence could mean. He (= a small, angular boy) pulled the fancy bows tight and stood up in such a way that... The sentence comes from The Final Passage by Caryl Phillips. Could anyone explain it to me please? Many thanks! Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used as a fixed expression. I would interpret it literally: there were some fancy bows, and the boy pulled them tight and then stood up. User:Angr 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like he was tying his shoes. Anchoress 11:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, sounds to me too that he was tying his shoes, or at least fixing them. Authors are usually very over-descriptive about mundane tasks like tying shoes. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the answers so far! The main thing I was unsure about here was what he meant by bows. They are shoes then? Perhaps a specific type of shoes? The only shoe-related meaning I could find in the Merriam-Webster dictionary was the frame of a snowshoe. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not shoes, they're shoelaces. Tied into bows. 'Member? Back in the old days? Before velcro? We used to tie our shoelaces in bows. Anchoress 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I should have thought of this. Thanks! Anyway, a few of us tie their shoelaces in bows even today. :) --Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? People don't wear shoes with shoelaces? That's news to me... -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol have you looked down lately? No but really, I know people in their teens who only wear shoes with laces once or twice a year. Anchoress 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are shoes with laces that are designed so you don't have to tie them. My nephew wears them and I always see him going around with his shoelaces untied. He can tie them, he's just too cool to.

I myself prefer to octuple not 'em, treat my shoes like slip-ons, and forget about tying shoelaces until I buy new ones in November. AEuSoes1 00:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do that too. There's nothing more annoying than laces that constantly need to be tied. StuRat 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not buy shoes without laces? JackofOz 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need, and shoes with laces are far more common. I don't like slip-ons, because the fit isn't as adjustable as laced shoes. I've tried velcro, but hated the hideous sound they made when I took them off. StuRat 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're a fashion faux pas. --Richardrj 11:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could get those shoes with elastic laces that slip-on, but look cool. Or buckles :-P Skittle 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the reason, if a person chooses to buy shoes with laces, it ill behoves them to complain about having to do the laces up. JackofOz 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :) My personal beef is with laces that wear out one before the other. What is that all about? One would think they would wear out at the same rate, but all too often one of them snaps when the other is still fine. IIRC, Nicholson Baker had a theory about this in one of his miniaturist novels, but I can't remember what it was. --Richardrj 11:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]