Language desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

December 11

Heraldry

Would it be proper to describe a dark red shield with a lot of three-lobed gold flowers on it as "Sanguine, semee of trefoils Or"? Black Carrot (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trefoils seems wrong; that refers to three-leafed grass or clover. If you can't determine the flower, you could say semée of flowers or, three-petalled. Sometimes the fleur-de-lis is improperly called a trefoil; if the flowers are fleur-de-lis, you should use semée-de-lis or (see this image). A three-petalled flower said to be trillium is sported next to a fleur-de-lis in the Franco-Ontarian flag. --Lambiam 12:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I got closer than I thought. I didn't think clover was a standard charge, so I just called it a flower. What's the usual tincture for clover? It seems like green would be more fitting, but apparently color-on-color violates some fundamental rule. Black Carrot (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a technical loophole -- "Gules, a trefoil Vert" would violate the tincture rule, but "Gules, a trefoil proper" might often be depicted in the same way, but is not as clear a violation... AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there a closer tincture to crimson than "sanguine"? Something a bit more purple? Black Carrot (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic tinctures are intended to be easily distinguishable from each other, so their number is necessarily limited. Among the standard tinctures, there's Gules (red) and Purpure (purple). Sanguine is technically a "stain" (not an ordinary heraldic color), and is not used all that frequently in heraldry (at least in British-based heraldry), and can have negative connotations in certain contexts (it's supposed to be the color of blood). AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Murrey, though that's a bit dark. Corvus cornix_talk 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I'll stick to Gules. What would be the best way to describe several or many green clovers scattered over the field? The article says that semé describes the background, not the charge itself, so it seems like it'd be stretching things to call it proper as well. On the other hand, on the color side of things, would it be possible to use fimbriation to get around the rule? The most natural outline is black, which unfortunately isn't a metal, but white or gold could look right. Black Carrot (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still interested in a field sprinkled with flowers, you can find here [1] Charlemagne's banner described as "Azure semé of fleurs-de-lis Or" and the France ancient arms. A semé or semy of fleur de lis can be described as fleury, but that can cause confusion as fleury is also used to describe a decoration of the ends of a cross (cross fleury or croix fleury). SaundersW (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is "possible to use fimbriation to get around the rule," but fimbriation of any but the simplest charges does not get around the reason for the rule. —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epithets / Epithet-names

John "the merciful"

Roy "Swifthand" Williams

Frida "Stoutheart"

Richard "the bald"

All those are Epithet-names, right? I'm just trying to figure out if i have understood the meaning of Epithet-names correctly, and if i can use Epithets behind names or in between first and last names like i did in these four examples i made up?

85.164.187.94 (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got the idea precisely. See this: [2] and epithet. SaundersW (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Latin

Can you translate: Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt ? I think it's something like: When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults. Some of the word endings seem incorrect, because the preposition cum takes the ablative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.33.2 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is intended to be, not the preposition cum, but the conjunction cum (cum...tum correlative just like English "when...then"). Proscript would seem to be a typo for proscripti. Wareh (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get this on a bumper sticker for my chariot? -SandyJax (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you help my son and I/me solve the problem of the useage of the words "I/me"?

This was a homework assignment I couldn't help him with. I don't know the rules for using I and me in sentences; and I have a degree in Elementary Education!! Spencer and I went Shopping. (I know that's correct). But why isn't: My sister wants Spencer and I to go shopping with her. also correct? (I know the correct word is me, because I'm looking at his homework assignment) I want to understand this once and for all so that I can teach him. I don't want to take up his teacher's time, plus I don't want to chance the fact that she didn't teach it correctly and put her on the spot, or should I? And admit I don't know? Please help me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.222 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your second sentence "Spencer and I" is the object of the verb, thus you need the object form, "me". This will be obvious to you if you take away the Spencer part: "my sister wants I to go shopping with her"--would you say this? No. You would say "my sister wants me to go shopping with her".--Eriastrum (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct.

Not so much. "Spencer and me" is the subject of the infinitive "to go". --Milkbreath (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To help you remember, think of kids' excuses for fighting:

I did it to her before she could do it to me.

"I" perform the action, and the action is performed to or on "me".

And simply remove the rest of the list, no matter how long, to get at the essential.

Catherine the Great, Boudicea, Thomas Aquinas and I wanted to see if we could find suitable Christmas gifts to match the ones that the Vanderbilt family had given last year to Amelia Earhart, Amelia Bedelia, A.A. Milne, A.A. Gill and me.

BrainyBabe (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children are (or used to be) taught that it's wrong to say things like 'Me and my friend went shopping', and by a process of false analogy people sometimes assume that they should use "my friend and I" in all cases. Another example of this hypercorrection is the expression 'between you and I'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this "Me and Roger" language rule is/was to efface or minimise the self, as in letting others pass through the door one holds open. It is a linguistic display of the important principle that children need to learn, that they do not (always) come first. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember being told that; but along with that lesson in etiquette, children also learn a wrong lesson in grammar. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(mammoth edit conflict) Grammatical case#Cases in English pretty much says it. Subjective pronoun and Objective pronoun have some information. You have to know grammar to select the right case for your pronouns, and sometimes standard usage defies the grammar ("It's me", for example). In your case, "My sister wants Spencer and I to go shopping with her", you can simply replace "Spencer and I/me" with "us/we" and trust your ear. Nobody would say "My sister wants we to go shopping with her." "Spencer and me" is equivalent to "us".

Rastafarians would indeed say "my sister want we to go" -- and this has influenced Jamaican English, and thus teenage British variants -- I won't say "slang" because I am not sure if the kids recognise the register shift. (Rastas also say "I and I", but that's another story.) BrainyBabe (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is devilishly difficult to parse. "Want" cannot take an indirect object. "Spencer and me to go" is the direct object of "want". "Spencer and me" is the subject of the infinitve "to go". Now, you want confusing? The subject of an infinitive takes the objective case! Challenge your son's teacher to parse that sentence.

All that said, there is a tendency nowadays in some places to just go with "I" in informal contexts whenever things get complicated. This mistake is starting to assume the appearance of a grammar shift in English even farther away than it has already gone from the idea of case in pronouns. For now, though, I think it's still good to stick to the right case when you can, in formal settings, at least. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, try using other pronouns, such as "he/him" or "she/her" to see how they work.

He wants her to stay.
*He wants she to stay.
He wants me to stay.
*He wants I to stay.

From the above, you can thus see that

My sister wants Spencer and me to go shopping with her.

is correct. :)

But note also:

You are taller than him.
You are taller than he is.
You are taller than he.
You are taller than me.
You are taller than I am.
You are taller than I.

IMHO 3 and 6 are awful, but some people proscribe 1 and 4, saying that 3 and 6 should be used instead. --Kjoonlee 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, to my ear, 1 and 4 suggest ignorance of the basic rules of ellipsis. On the other hand, I have come to terms with "It's me" by replacing it with "'Tis I" which is so pretentious as to be a personal trademark now. Bielle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending to be pretentious (is there a word for this - meta-pretentiousness, perhaps?) can be great fun, though. When I make a phone call, after the other person has answered "Hello" or whatever, I sometimes start with "It is I, Jack, who am calling". (That identifies me far better than the sound of my voice. Only this particular Jack would ever have the gall to utter such words.) I always pick my mark, though; mostly, I just say "Hi, it's Jack". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I know the concept and I like the word! I shall adopt "meta-pretentiousness". It is sort of chuckling up one's own batwing sleeve. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to remember it is the break it up.

Correct:

My sister wants Spencer and me to go shopping with her

My sister wants me to go shopping with her

Incorrect:

My sister wants Spencer and I to go shopping with her

My sister wants I to go shopping with her

Correct:

Spencer and I like shopping

I like shopping

Incorrect:

Spencer and me like shopping

Me like shopping

Just take out the other people in the sentence and see whether I/me sounds right on its own. I hope that helps! :) --Candy-Panda (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"apotheosis"

what is the etymology of the word "apotheosis" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.229.171 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Greek: apo = "change," theos = "god," and the "sis" suffix indicates a process of placing or setting, (e.g., synthesis). Thus, the term means, "To elevate to godhood." ◄Zahakiel ► 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right general idea, but some of your morpheme segmentation is a little dodgy. Apo- is a preposition/adverb which primarily means "away from", -the- is the stem of the word theos "god", -o- is a vowel used to form a denominal verb (here a long vowel spelled with Omega, as opposed to the o of theos, which is a short vowel spelled with Omicron), -s- is a nominalizer, -i- is the noun declension vowel, and the word-final -s indicates nominative singular case and number. AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As AnonMoos says, the suffix of the verb θε-όω (theoō, "deify") turns the noun theos "god" into the factitive verb "to make X a god" (see Smyth, Greek Grammar, 866(3)), and when you in turn make a noun from such a verb, it ends in -ōsis. The apo- prefix has a good parallel in apolithoō "petrify," but it's hard to tie this to the best-established meaning "away from." I believe that most, if forced to answer for it, would say that apo- is here "intensive," which means that the transformation to god (or stone) is utter & complete. Wareh (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little peculiar that αποθεος as an adjective means "far from God, godless", while αποθεοω as a verb (formed from exactly the same stems) means "to deify"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this shows the coincidence of two quite different uses of the apo- prefix. By the way, after so much discussion, I've just looked into Schwyzer's Griechische Grammatik, where, indeed, he says (II.445) that the combination of apo- with an -oō verb is merely intensive ("Verstärkung"). On the facing page Schwyzer includes apotheos under examples of apo- "without, -less." Wareh (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be helpful, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apotheosis .--Mike robert (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]