Language desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

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.

November 14

Translation of unknown language in Arabic script

Someone anonymously sent me this. I;m curious as to what it is, but I don't know what language. Can someone translate it?

پۼ۾پٸگگښڝڭڼ ےۏڴٸپ ۼ۾ ۼپ ٸگگښڝڭڼے ۏڥڙځٸ پ ۼ۾پٸښڝگ ښڝڼ ےۏڥ ڙښڝڭڼےۼ۾پٸگگ ښ ڝڭڼےۏڴڶ ڥڙځٸ ڴڶ ڥڙځٸپۼ۾پٸگگښڝ ڭڼےۏڴڶڥڙځٸپ ۼپٸڼ ےۏڴ ڶڥ ڙځٸ پ ۼ۾پ ځٸپۼ۾پٸگگښ ڝڼےۏڴڶ ڥڙځٸپۼ۾پ ٸگگ ښڝڭڼے ۏڴ ڶڥڙځٸپ ۼ۾پ ۏڴڶڥڙځڼ ےۏڴڶڥ ڙځٸپٸگگښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥڙځٸ پۼ۾پٸگگښڝ ےۏڴٸپ ۼ۾ ۼپٸگگ ڥڙځٸپۼ۾پٸ گگښ ڝ ڭ ڼےۏڴڶڥڙځٸ پ ۼپٸ گگښڝۼ۾پ گگښ ڝڭڼےۏ گگښ ڝڭڼےۏ ڥڙځٸپ ۼ۾پپٸگ گښڝڼ ښڝ ښڝڼے ۏڴڶڥڙځٸپ ۼ۾پ ۏ ڴڶڥڙځڼ ےۏڴڶڥ ڙځٸپښڝڼے ۏڴښڝڭڼ ےۏ پۼ۾پٸگگښ ڝڭڼ ے ۼ۾پٸگگښڝ ڭ ےۏڴڶڥ ڙځٸ پۼ۾ پٸگگښ ڝڭڼےۏڴڶ ٸگگښڝڼ ےۏڶڥڙځٸ ڶڥڙځٸپ ۼ۾پ ٸگگښڝ ٸگگښڝ ڼےۏڶڥڙ ځٸپ ۼپٸگگښڝ ڼے ۏڶڥڙځٸپ ۼ۾پٸےۏڴڶڥڙځٸپۼ ۾پٸگپٸ ڼےۏڥڙځٸپښڝڶڥڙځٸپۼ ۾پٸگگ ڶڥڙځٸ پۼ۾پ ٸگگښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥڙځٸپۼ ۾پٸگ پٸگڼ ےۏڴٸگگگگښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥڙځٸ ڥڙځٸپۼ ۾پٸگگښڝڭڼ ښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڼےۏڴڶڥڙ ځٸپ ۼ پٸڼ ے ۏڴڶڥڙځٸ پۼ۾پٸ ڼے ۏڥڙځٸپ ۼ۾پٸگ گښڝڼ ښ ڝ ڼےۏڴڶڥڙځٸپ ۼپٸگگ ٸگگښ ڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥڙځٸپۼ ۾پڝڼڝڼےۏ ڥڙځٸپ ښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥڙځٸ پۼ۾ڶڥڙځٸپگښڝڭ ڶڥڙځٸ پۼ ۾پ ٸےۏڶڥ ڙځٸ پۼ۾پٸگ گښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥڙځ ٸپۼ ۾پٸگگښڝڼۏڴڶڥڙځٸپۼ ۾پٸگگ ښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥ ڙځٸپۼ۾پٸ پ ۼ۾ پٸگگښڝ ےۏڴڶڥ ڙځٸپۼ ۾پٸگگښ ےۏڴڶڥ ڙځٸپۼ۾پٸ گښڝڭڼ ےۏڴڶڥ ڙځ ٸپۼ۾پٸگ گښ ڝڭ ڼےۏڥڙځ ٸپۼ۾پٸ گگښڝ ےۏڴڶڥڙځٸپ ۼپٸگگښ ڝڼےۼ۾پٸ گگښ ڝڭڼےۏڶ ڥڙځ ٸپ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Poret (talk • contribs) 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judged by the script only, it seems to record Urdu or one of the other Indian languages.--K.C. Tang 09:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The script is indeed, the script used for writing Urdu, but the font doesn't match up, because the letters that are used don't match up. It's probably random junk, or a lorem ipsum. It may be English converted to look like Urdu, but I think it unlikely because of sequences like گگگگ with 4 repeated letters. 58.178.92.244 09:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was produced by taking little segments of some text and making a jumble out of it, for instance by using the Markov chain technique at the character level (see articles on Nonsense and Dissociated press). The segment "ےۏڴڶڥڙځٸپۼ" occurs 3 times but scores no Google hits. --Lambiam 08:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the fact that every single letter has at least one attached mark is suspect. The letter ڙ as far as I know occurs only in Sindhi, but I don't recall seeing any of the three letters ڴڶڥ in any language. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word for mixing sociolects?

Is there a word to describe mixing sociolects for literary effect? e.g. "what-ho, bitches" and such. There are many words that are almost the right word, and the result is an idiolect ... Bonus question: are there different words for doing it deliberately and for doing it accidentally? - David Gerard 08:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "register clash". I guess it's a type of bathos. --jnestorius^(talk) 09:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it a 'mixed lect'. 58.178.92.244 09:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do this for literary effect, it would almost by definition be done deliberately. But in literature, it would not, perhaps, be a good idea to designate the mixed elements as sociolects: usually there is an intentional mixing of styles (which are not sociolects, nor is the result an idiolect: idiolect is behaviour, not [literary] effect).

While register clash certainly seems a good term, I would prefer stylistic clash—again, provided we are talking about literature. This could refer to either deliberate or accidental use.

To my mind, bathos would rather be a type of stylistic clash than the other way round. Bessel Dekker 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the word for...

...Americans who are ignorant about, and regard as inferior, other countries, races and cultures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.2 (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common? Ha! ...sorry. It had to be said. I'll be quiet now. — gogobera (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobic? --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insular, parochial, jingoist, chauvinist. None covers both the ignorance and the arrogance, and none is specific to Americans, unsurprisingly. Maybe "insular chauvinist" or "parochial jingoist". --Milkbreath 11:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a wonderful phrase on Radio 4 which someone used to compare London's own self importance of itself in relation to the rest of the UK. The phrase was "Cultural myopia". Cultural short sight, meaning they can see no further than the end of their own nose - X201 11:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arrogance is more important than the ignorance. I don't think xenophobic is the right word because such Americans do not neccesarily hate, or have a fear of, other countries, races or cultures. They simply think they are the best and don't care about other cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.2 (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think the word you want is chauvinist, though, as Milkbreath notes, this is not specific to Americans. For them, you have to use an expression like American chauvinist. Ethnocentric American might work, though it is arguable whether Americans constitute a single ethnic group. Marco polo 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American exceptionalism? --Sean 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalistic would do to describe all of the traits the OP is asking for, in the 20th Century sense of the word. Again, this is not specific to Americans, though. --Manga 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While not necessarily as descriptive, and clearly pejorative, you could use "Yanks". I do like "cultural myopia" and "ethnocentric" as more descriptive terms.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like 'ethnocentric', as it only means 'centred upon a particular ethnic group or groups', and has none of the connotations of 'egocentric' (i.e. self) from which it is obviously derived, in this case. We could, imaginably say, "We should have a more ethnocentric policy towards inner-city poverty in areas where immigrants are a majority", and it would be understood as meaning, "We should try to understand them more when defining our policies." However, I could imagine the terrible outrage if someone took the word to mean what the OP is wanting =) --Manga 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the diversity of terms above -- each has its own flavor, and thus there is no single word. Also agree that the querent is clearly looking for TWO words, as there is no term specific to Americans, so the word "American" would be a necessary second term to include if trying to express the exact concept as described. Jfarber 15:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys might think "yank" is pejorative, but it's really no more pejorative to us than "American." It sounds a little quaint to us. Using either "yank," "American," "foreigner," or whatever you may with a negative tone would probably be more offensive.

I don't know whom you mean with "you guys" and "us", but many Americans (especially Southerners) consider "Yank" and "Yankee" quite offensive. —An gr 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's something new I've learned today. I'll never sing Over There in the shower again. :) But seriously, it didn't seem too offensive for the makers of this 1979 movie. Is the offence factor something that's crept in over the past quarter-century? -- -- JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was offensive enough for the characters in this 1939 movie! —An gr 21:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down south they say "Yankee" because it's too hot to say a long word like "carpetbagger". There are two kinds of Yankee, by the way: A plain old Yankee comes on vacation; a "damned Yankee" comes to stay. ---- Milkbreath (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culturebound. As in musclebound.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zanber

Are the words "zanber" and "haken" purely fictional, or are they misspelled or foreign words? They should pertain to weapons. (Sorry, I forgot to sign off and put a title earlier.) 203.124.2.43 11:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Curious[reply]

Haken simply means hook in German. As a weapon, I suppose it could be any type of nasty thing with a hooked end, a hooked bayonet, a poker (Schürhaken in German), a siege hook and so forth. In boxing, (Aufwärts-)Haken can also mean uppercut, and "jemandem den/einen Haken stellen" can mean "to trip someone". Zanber is most likely a misspelled Zauber, the German word for magic. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now saw the context: Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha terminology, for example. My answer could be dead wrong, and the words might have a completely different origin. Haken, for example, is also the name of a Japanese temporary staffing service. "Zanber" is also used in the Gundam meta-series, where it is linked to sabre. But the series have used German names too, such as the weapons manufacturer Morgenroete Inc. (Morgenröte is the German word for dawn). The fictional company makes "beam weapons". The "zanber" supposedly is a beam weapon, while in the "Magical Girl" terminology, it's one of the forms of "Bardiche assault" (Barudisshu Asaruto) along with the "Haken form" and the "Assault form". Honestly, I'm clueless now. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short sentence from French!

Could someone please tell me what "Quelle belle journèe!" means? I tried a translator but it didn't translate the last word. Thanks :) 82.12.214.93 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What a beautiful day!" The last word should be journée not journèe - Eron^Talk 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank-you, I was wondering why it wouldn't translate right. You can tell I'm a German student, haha :D 82.12.214.93 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]