Language desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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 30

Abbreviation

Why is it "RSVP" instead of "RSIVP"? "S'il" is two words. 60.230.124.64 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"USA" (not "USOA") means "United States of America". -- Wavelength (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of acronyms and initialisms. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article (grammar) - acronyms/initialisms tend to be constructed (said without reference) as a new unit, with the locality of the article (and other signifiers) moving out to the abbreviation itself. As above, "United States of America" becomes USA, so that "of USA" and "of the USA" seem to flow more naturally. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say it doesn't matter what the abbreviation is because it's no longer really an abbreviation. It's just a word on it's own. Do most people really know what it means, or even that it is French? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disagree with that, Adam. Even if anglophones don't know where it comes from or what the letters stand for, they still say it as 4 separate letters and not as a single-word acronym such as radar or laser. True, the expression has taken on a life of its own, divorced from the original French words, but I wouldn't classify it as a word. I see our Words without vowels includes MC and DJ, so I guess some people would be happy to accept RSVP as such a word. Not me, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more or less what I was trying to get at, although avoiding the specific word "word", since it leads to JackofOz's thicket. "RSVP" has become a "thing" and one uses articles to mark "things" (a/the RSVP; the apple) versus submarking them (RS the VP; app the le). 98.169.163.20 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Adam. As additional evidence of his conclusions, I have heard instances of "please RSVP" and even "I am RSVPing to your invitation".--Thomprod (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought of that, too (to the detriment of my argument). In that sense, it's certainly at least a quasi-verb. However, is RSVP in the sense "We haven't received a single RSVP yet" any more a noun than FBI or CIA are nouns? My assumption here is that for a string of letters to be classified as a noun, it must firstly be considered a word, and abbreviations are not considered words. Or are they? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider many acronyms to be words/nouns. We have already mentioned RSVP used as "a reply", CIA and FBI can be nouns as abbreviations of "the Agency" or "the Bureau". Thomprod (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP, the acronym is "RSVP" rather than "RSIVP" because "s'il" is a Contraction (grammar) and therefore considered one word. Thomprod (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yucatan

If Yucatan is a Mayan word that means "I don't understand you" and similar phrases, why did it become the place's name anyway? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See BBC - Languages - Your say. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Language Log. This kind of story is clearly very popular, but mostly no more true than "physicists have proved bumblebees can't fly".--Rallette (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might wish to add this to List of common misconceptions#Linguistics.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benin and Gabon

I have two requests:

Could someone translate "Se voulant et se croyant sincèrement démocrate, au point qu’aucune accusation ne l’irrite davantage que celle d’être un dictateur, il n’en a pas moins eu de cesse qu’il n’ait fait voter une constitution lui accordant pratiquement tous les pouvoirs et réduisant le parlement au rôle d’un décor coûteux que l’on escamote même en cas de besoin."

and "aux textes officiels de nature législative, administrative ou judiciaire, ni à leurs traductions officielles"? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying the first passage, with not quite enough coffee:

Seeing himself as and believing himself to be truly democratic, so much so that no accusation annoyed him more than that of being a dictator, he had hardly stopped [doing something in a previous passage?] when he arranged approval of a constitution giving him nearly all power and reducing the parliament to the role of an expensive decoration that you could bypass as needed.

As for the second, it seems to be missing a ni at the beginning ("ni X ni Y" has the sense of "neither X nor Y"). If I'm right (no guarantee), it could be something like:

...(neither) the official legislative, administrative, or judicial versions (or text, or language), nor their official translations...

--- OtherDave (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly images? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Il n'a pas eu de cesse" is an expression that could be translated literally as "he would not let things rest" or more idiomatically as "he wasn't satisfied until" he had arranged for the approval of a new constitution etc, as OtherDave very aptly translated. "Escamoter" is the verb used when a conjurer makes, for example, a rabbit disappear into a hat. The second sentence could be translated more simply as "laws, regulations and legal requirements, nor their official translations." --Xuxl (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xuxl -- that idiom seems to fit better in context (even with little context to go on). I'd seen a couple of connotations for escamoter and like yours. The French sentence is wordier than I would be in English, so a more idiomatic version might be:

He regarded himself as a truly democratic leader; nothing irritated him more than being called a dictator. Still, he wasn't happy until he had the constitution rewritten to give him virtually all power, transforming the parliament into high-priced scenery (a theatrical sense of décor) that could be whisked away as needed.

--- OtherDave (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Writing by Einstein and Szilárd?

I'm reading the letter that Szilárd and Einstein wrote to Franklin Roosevel urging U.S. development atomic weapons. The second paragraph seems pretty sloppy for a genius. "It has been made probable...that it may become possible...it appears almost certain." Am I reading this incorrectly or is this kind of sloppy? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Szilard wrote it, and he was Hungarian, so we have to cut him some slack right there. Also, you try writing a letter of world-shaking import to the president of the United States; I think he did pretty good. But, yes, I don't think it's possible that it could be made probable that something may be possible, especially if it appears almost certain. There is another problem, too: the second part where the port in the parenthetical magically appears outside it. But it got the job done. It would have scared the bejeezus out of me. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following EC:A couple of mitigating circumstances: Einstein's language background is German. Passive voice is considered good style in German. Thus thinking patterns when constructing a sentence goes along the lines of

(likelihood of success) - material required - action - result

rather than the English

actor - action - result - (conditions to be met)

They were also trying to word those phrases emphatically enough that they'd get people acting "now" while not promising any immediate results when entrusted with the task. Given that, I think the phrasing isn't all that bad. When you say "sloppy for a genius" you indicate that you'd expect a genius to be equally proficient at all tasks they encounter. That expectation neither meets with the definition nor the reality. Einstein's ability to see solutions for physics problems that had baffled others came at the price of having an unusual mind that is these days described by some as a form of dyslexia. He flunked school math and is quoted as saying that he refused to memorize things he could just as well look up in a book. Lisa4edit (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things.

On Einstein failing math; total bullshit. It has no basis in historical fact at all, and is simply the kind of lie we tell ourselves to show us that "anyone can do anything". See this article in Time Magazine which clearly debunks the myth. According to Einstein himself, he was doing differential and integral calculus at age 15, and according to his actual school records, he was always at the top of his class in Mathematics from primary school onwards; most of his teachers openly noting in his records that he was far ahead of his classmates.
On "dyslexia"; may or may not be true, but dyslexia is commonly misunderstood to be a specific disease or syndrome; it simply means any difficulty in reading or writing. Eloquence and use of language are not really connected with dyslexia in any way, which is more about techinical processing of words on a paper, and not about constructing eloquent language. Also, eloquence has no connection to scientific proficience; they are completely different modes of expression and thinking. Else, Shakespeare would have been a fantastic scientist, no?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lisa4edit hits on a key aspect: the writers wanted to advocate a path without guaranteeing results. The gist of the translation (relevant to the original question) seems to be:

Recent work by Joliet, Fermi, and Szilard has made it seem likely that one could set up a chain reaction in a mass of uranium. ("made it seem probable that it could be possible, though no one's actually done it yet")

Now it looks as though this could be done in the immediate future (rather than years and from now--things are heating up).

We believe, though we're not certain, that this could lead to the construction of a very powerful bomb that could destroy an entire port, though such a bomb might be too heavy to transport by air. (We see military uses, but the challenges are likely to be daunting.)

I've read far sloppier writing on far less complex topics by far more native speakers of English. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'translation'? I assume the letter is in English since FDR was the recipient. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron: that goes to show one should not believe everything one hears or reads in a book. I went back and checked and found a source that explained the situation:[1] The grading systems in Germany and Switzerland are reversed. Both use numbers 1-6. So when the Germans read he was graded at "5" to them it meant a failing grade, whereas the Swiss school he went to meant one level beneath excellent. (And there we thought only language could cause confusion ;-) Lisa4edit (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the probable/possible/certain thing: perhaps the intent was to say that over the 4-month period it had become increasibly probable that an artificial nuclear reaction was possible, and "now" it was almost certain. I agree that the passage doesn't clearly say this, though. --Anonymous, 03:34 UTC, December 31, 2008.

Yes, but it starts off with "probable", drops down to "possible" and then leap frogs over both to "almost certain." 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible" isn't expressing a likelihood there; it's expressing the distinction between something that could happen and something that never could (possible/impossible). The word that expresses likelihood is "may", as in "may be possible", and it's possible that (as a non-native English speaker) Szilard chose that word because he thought it was grammatically required for something that wasn't certain. --Anonymous, 18:53 UTC, December 31, 2008.

Another Hungarian-German, the conductor Hans Richter, speaking/writing in English, uttered the immortal line: Up with your damned nonsense will I put twice, or perhaps once, but sometimes always, by God, never. There must be something about Hungarian that gives rise to these wonderful linguistic events. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I agree, there is definitely something with native Hungarian speakers, and it's not limited to English. Take for example Ephraim Kishon. Hungarian Jew and Holocaust survivor, he picked up Hebrew in no time after he moved to Israel to avoid Communist prosecution and started writing his satirical column only 2 years after he entered the country. And it's often said that humour tends to be hardest thing to understand when you are learning secondary language. It might be the fact that Hungarian (along with Finnish, Estonian and Basque) doesn't fall into Indo-European language family, and is actually Uralic, Finno-Ugric language (and so are Finnish and Estonian, but not Basque). I remember reading about linguists trying to construct language that would force its users to think in different, new ways, Hungarian might just have similar effect.--Melmann^(talk) 11:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web language conventions?

A lot of wording for website navbars have become standardized, for example:

About
Blog
Forum(s)
Search
Contact

What short title do you recommend for a link to a web page that collects news clippings and media/TV/radio excerpts that discuss or or praise the website's content? I'm thinking maybe "in the news", or "media coverage" or "news reports" or "mass media" or similar.... --Sonjaaa (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, see Category:Wikipedia news. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. It uses the title Wikipedia:Press_coverage for what I'm seeking.--Sonjaaa (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]