Language desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 15

The fisrt name 'TRILBY'

I wish to source the origin or earliest record of the name 'TRILBY'. I am aware, of course, of George Du Maurier's book 'TRILBY' published in 1894 and the name of the heroine Trilby O'Ferrall. However neither Leonee Ormond nor Elaine Showalter in their introductions make any mention of the origin of the name. I have discovered an earlier reference by the French novelist Charles Nodier in his tale "Trilby, ou le lutin d'Argail" published in 1822, but there my trail ends. I have searched elsewhere, but usually finish up with reference to a soft felt hat.Is there any other known history? 58.178.54.122 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary goes no further than Du Maurier but adds this explanation : "After the novel Trilby by George du Maurier (because such a hat was worn in the original London stage production based on the novel)." As for Nodier, he is said to have borrowed the theme of his tale from Walter Scott's "Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft" (see here). But did he also filch the name? - Mu 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cartridge paper"

"Cartridge paper" is apparently a British term. I need to know the U.S. equivalent, under which name it would be sold by paper suppliers. A friend who is making greeting cards has a magazine which calls for "140 lb (300g/m² watercolour paper or strong cartridge paper. The instructions say to "Rub the watercolour or cartridge paper with an antistatic bag, ink the rubber stamp with clear embossing inkpad, and press the stamp onto the paper and lift off." Wikipedia has Cartridge paper as "high quality type of heavy paper used for illustration and drawing. It was originally used for making weaponry cartridges." But that does not seem to equal a name suppliers here use. I only see paper sold under that terminology in UK and Australia. Thanks. Edison 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Card stock? —Keenan Pepper 04:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be akin to Bristol board? (Just a guess.) — Michael J 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartridge paper is the kind of smooth, white paper they make drawing pads out of. Watercolour paper is rougher and more absorbent. I have a pad of Daler-Rowney cartridge which is 130 g/m², and one of heavyweight cartridge which is 222 g/m², and about the same weight as the Bristol board comics artists use. For comparison, photocopying paper is 80 g/m². 300 g/m² would be a pretty heavy card. --Nicknack009 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beowulf

Pronunciation of "beowulf" if you please. In simple "ee" as in "weed" terms if you would be so kind. Thank you.87.102.4.73 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-wolf, with the stress on the first syllable. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Oddly I'd assumed that it was anyhting but that. Thanks.

Our article Beowulf (hero) has a pronunciation which is more like "bay-o-wulf" - sorry I can't write in IPA. I must add, I have never heard it pronounced in any other way thanm that indicated in the article. DuncanHill 10:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're right, "bay-o-wolf" is probably closer than "bear-wolf". I was just running the vowel sounds together. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you speak in a non-rhotic accent, where there's not much difference? --Sean 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard it pronounced beɪjəwʊlf with a short ə in my rhotic California dialect, but I always assumed it was correctly pronounced bɛowulf.

If beowulf is pronounced bearwolf - why not write it as such?87.102.4.73 09:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my (also non-rhotic) dialect, I have always pronounced it like 'beer-wolf'. But, then, I AM a northerner. --Manga 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bears and wolves

Also is the etymology of the word known - and if so is it intended to mean "bear-wolf" ie like 'red-injun' names such as 'sleeping fox' etc?, or is the similarity just coincidence..?Thanks87.102.4.73 09:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the name means "bee-wolf", which would be a bear - that is to say, a hunter of bees (for their honey). DuncanHill 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bear" doesn't mean "a hunter of bees", according to Online Etymology Dictionary. They say it means "the brown one". --81.91.47.193 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, it's a sort of kenning - bee wolf = the hunter of bees (as a wolf is a hunter) = bear (bears are famous for liking honey). DuncanHill 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online etymology here [1] DuncanHill 15:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I just misunderstood you to break down the word "bear" into "bee-er" (The Russian word for 'bear' does indeed mean "honey knower") --16:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Russian word for "bear" means "honey eater". The v of medved etymologically belongs to the stem medu. —Angr 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the stem is only med. The u should be an inflectional (genitive) ending. Otherwise, I agree with Angr. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from a PIE u-stem medhu- (Sanskrit madhu, Greek μεθυ), so etymologically at least the u is part of the stem. —Angr 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The nominative noun for "honey" is "med" in today's Russian (as well as Czech and Slovak), "medu" being the genitive. It's quite a frequent pattern for compound nouns in Slavic languages. However, the etymological source may be different in this particular case. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary (Oxford Russian Dictionary) lists мёда, meda/myoda, as the genitive, although меду, medu, is the locative. Tesseran 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

мёду is also both dative and partitive, the latter case also referred to as the "second genitive". And anyway, this fails to explain the initial "v" in the Ukrainian vedmid. --81.91.47.193 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Ukrainian vedmid then? (Also, you might want to fix Bear#Etymology) --20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.129.2 (talk • contribs)

Why? the etymology there looks fine. Bear DOES NOT derive from bee-wolf - bee wolf is a kenning for bear. DuncanHill 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology section there tells that Russian "медведь" literally means "honey-wise", but the editors above seem to disagree. --20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Missed that! :) DuncanHill 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only explanation I can think of is that the Ukranian word appeared later (just as Ukrainian did as a separate language), with the Russian syllables switched (when there already was a V). I'll check with an etymological dictionary later today. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 09:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a later taboo deformation of medved. —Angr 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionaries I have at home didn't help much. Only one of them gives the Ukrainian word – medviď (медвідь), where the syllables are not switched. On Google, this word obviously does appear on Ukrainian pages, too. However, my Ukrainian (translation, not etymological) dictionary has only the switched version. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok so definately not 'bear-wolf' in meaning - just a colloquialism for bear. Thanks.83.100.174.137 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult Max Vasmer: Bulgarian and Church Slavonic medved, Serbian and Croatian мѐдвjед, Slovene médvẹd, Wendish mjedwjédź, and Czech nedvěd all point to the Proto-Slavic form medvědь, which literally means "he who eats honey". Ukrainian and Polish forms, as usual, represent later developments (although there is dialectal Ukrainian form медвíдь). Compare Sanskrit madhuvád- ("he who eats sweets") and Lithuanian mės-ė̃dis ("he who eats meat"). The Slavic word appeared as a taboo derivation and displaced the earlier Indo-European word, which is likely to have been cognate with Greek ἄρκτος. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beowulf -q2

I'd like to read a literal translation of the language in beowulf into english - does anyone know of one. (or alternatively a literal translation of another european work of about the same time or earlier).

Alternatively is there such a thing as a old-english (or norse) tranlation program - that will translate blocks of text - simialar to 'babel fish'?87.102.4.73 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of either of the above (but would appreciate both!) but there is a Penguin Classics edition of Beowulf, with the Old English text faced by a page with a gloss of most words. Published 1995, edited by Michael Alexander, ISBN 0-14-043377-5. DuncanHill 10:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have found a few Old English - Modern English dictionaries online, eg [2] by googling old english translation, but no machine yet. DuncanHill 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was about to add that any text would do (doesn't have to be old english - could be norse etc) - basically a chance to look at kennings in more detail and in context (without learning the original language)?87.102.4.73 10:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found a line-by-line translation online which may be helpful, link here [3] DuncanHill 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a facing-translation which looks like it could be good for your purposes [4] DuncanHill 10:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.83.100.174.137 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - found some interesting stuff for me too! DuncanHill 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try also beowulftranslations.net Xn4 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For kennings in Old Norse poetry this site is invaluable: [5] Haukur 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff, thanks Xn4 and Haukurth DuncanHill 11:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Thank you.87.102.66.173 11:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of words needed to be able to understand a language

What is, approximately, the number of words one uses in everyday speech? Thanks.

EDIT:My question was rather vague. I meant the number of words to more or less understand a language in most everyday situations, with just occasional dictionary look ups.--Taraborn 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere a long time ago that it was about 300. Incidentally, the most common can be found in our article here. --Manga 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you monitor a speaker over a longer period, you'll find more and more different words used, so you need to define a cut-off time. For example, you will probably agree that whistle is a common word, but days may go by without your using it. It does not occur in the list of the top 1000 words in UK English.[6]. In fact, the following words you used to formulate your question are also not in that list: needed, language, approximately, uses, everyday, and thanks. (That list has inflected forms and not lemmas (dictionary words), and the basic forms need, use and thank are in the list – but not language and approximate. On the other hand, these three words are both nouns and verbs, and should each count as two words; their rankings are high because they have been conflated.) In learning a new language I experience an uncomfortable switch-over point in which I have enough vocabulary to say what I want to say, but not enough that I can be confident I'll understand what people reply. The problem is that I use the words I know, and they use the words they know, many of which I don't know yet (and they can't know which words I don't know). This is the typical situation when I know a few thousand words. Apparently that is not yet enough for comfortable two-way everyday communication. You can get by if the other party is willing to keep explaining words you don't know, but expect the explanations to contain other words you don't know. It is hard to define precisely what the meaning is of "be able to understand" and "everyday speech", but I'd say: at least a few thousand. Here they say: "A vocabulary of between 1500 to 2000 words should be enough for most circumstances", but this source has "a vocabulary of 6,000 to 7,000 for spoken text", which conforms better to my experience. See also Number of words in English. --Lambiam 01:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent response, Lambiam. Seriously, couldn't be better. I'm trying to learn German and I feel exactly what you pointed out. Seems those 6000-7000 are going to be my goal. Thank you very much to both. --Taraborn 01:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]