Language desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 18 >

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.

July 17

IPA of Advaita Vedanta

I have asked this in the talk page of the article, but it needs the expertise of someone who knows sanskrit pronunciation and IPA. I figure that if anyone has such broad knowledge it will be here. The Article gives the pronunciation as IPA: [əd̪vait̪ə veːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]. Shouldn't it be IPA: [əd̪vɛt̪ə veːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]? I am not nearly confident enough to change the article myself. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, /ai/ is right for Sanskrit. I'd use [ʋ] instead of [v] in both instances, though, and the /n/ before the dental /t/ is itself dental, so I'd go for IPA: [əd̪ʋait̪ə ʋeːd̪ɑːn̪t̪ə]. —An gr 07:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is the pronunciation of ऐ different is Sanskrit to in Hindi because I checked what I thought was right against [this site]? The devenagari अद्वैत would have lead me to think that it should be an ɛ sound. I am not a fluent Hindi speaker so I could have that pronunciation wrong too! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know much about Hindi but I think /ai/ has been monophthongized to /ɛ/ in it. —An gr 08:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would explain why I got it wrong! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old meaning of "leet"

In a Scottish church document from 1835, I read that a church asked "permission to put an ordained minister upon the leet". What does this mean? I don't have access to the OED right now, and I know without looking that it's going to be impossible to find this meaning of leet on Google :-) 71.182.134.18 (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick from meaning 1:

"A special kind of court of record which the lords of certain manors were empowered by charter or prescription to hold annually or semi-annually"

or the more general meaning 2:

"A list of persons designated as eligible for some office." --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you do know that the OED isn't the only dictionary on the web, right? --Kreachure (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has an entry in the Wiktionary here. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei (sic) Fyodorov

The page spells his first name Олексій and Алексей in Ukrainian and Russian, respectively. Why would this not be transliterated "Aleksei" in English? That's how it appears in the English-language edition of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Is this a rule for this, or is it a matter of convention or preference? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just convention, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn or Peter Tchaikovsky. (On the other hand, I notice our articles on the two of them call them Aleksandr and Pyotr.) —An gr 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, the examples you give are anglicized first names, such as with the Russian war hero Joseph Trumpeldor whose name appears thus in the (English-only) Encyclopedia Judaica. My query is about transliteration in cases where the original Cyrillic has to be romanized. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alexei is sort of a borderline case. I've known English-speakers who weren't even of Russian heritage named Alexei, but the name was clearly borrowed into English from Russian. So it's sort of an anglicized name itself. In a formal romanization I would of course write Aleksei or Aleksey or Aleksej or Alekseĭ (depending on the romanization system being used), but I wouldn't be surprised if whoever started our article on Fyodorov wasn't being that scientificky about the spelling of the first name. I notice "Alexei Fyodorov" -wikipedia gets a lot more Google hits than "Aleksei Fyodorov" -wikipedia, so the anglicized spelling seems to be well entrenched. —An gr 09:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In turn, Alexei was borrowed from the Latin Alexius (similarly for Sergius > Sergei etc). So it's really going back to its roots, and using x instead of ks is understandable. This sort of thing also happens with names that Russian borrowed from German. The German Lehmanstein became, in (strictly transliterated) Russian, Leymanshteyn, but to render it in English as "Leymanshteyn" would look, well, wrong, so it usually comes out as Lehmanstein. Then there's Alexandre Benois, whose name was originally French. In Russian it became Бэнуа, which is strictly transliterated "Benua" in English, but can anyone be blamed for spelling it "Benois"? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source language was Greek (Alexios, Sergios) rather than Latin (Alexius, Sergius), of course. The name's popularity in Russia may be traced to a medieval ecclesiast who became Moscow's patron saint. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there's Togliatti, Russia, so spelled on National Geographic maps, although Wikipedia spells it Tolyatti. —An gr 12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... what you two are describing touches on a related matter: the reliance on phonologic elements rather than strict letter-based equivalencies when transliterating. For example, vowel-poor Hebrew is quite inadequate to render the nuances of French pronunciation, let alone the complexities of French orthography: silent consonants aren't represented, so that accurate back-transcribing to romanize requires actual knowledge of the French original. For quite some time, I was unaware that the ubiquitous biscuits I called "Patty bar" (פטי בר) were none other than the classic Petit Beurre...! And with all due respect to the German/Russian axis (linguistically), I tend to regard the Jewish surnames, at least, as having been filtered through Yiddish which has its own orthography using Hebrew letters. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:RUS guides us, Alexei, Alexey, Aleksei, and Aleksey are all acceptable transliterations, although I'd prefer the latter. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was Greek, my error. However, whichever spelling you choose, please don't pronounce it a-LEK-sy, but a-lek-SAY. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Sexy a-lek-SAY doesn't rhyme! —An gr 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"virtuoso concerto

What does "virtuoso concerto" mean? I could not find it in wiktionary or wikipedia (though if you search for it, you'll see articles with the word).68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a typographical error to me. Virtuoso (meaning highly skilled) is applied to a performer or group of performers, or to their performance. It would not be applied to the word concerto, which is a musical composition for a solo instrument and orchestra. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a typographical error; what is meant is a concerto that demands great virtuosity from the soloist, or that gives the soloist the opportunity to show off his or her virtuosity. DAVID ŠENEK 09:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a typographical error at all, it is probably meant to indicate a solo concerto, as opposed to a concerto grosso. Both of these musical compositions are called concerti, but a soloist plays the primary melodic component in the former while the latter has a group of musicians playing the prominent role in a piece. Aas217 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the names of medical subspecialties

Why is an orthopaedic surgeon not an orthopaediatrician? Why do some specialties use -ology as a suffix, and others -iatrics? My first question on Wikipedia so I hope it's phrased properly and my apologies for rather rudely asking two questions at once! Thanks, Od6600 (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first question, orthopaedic is the adjective for orthopod, which is a completely different structure from paediatrics... which leads to your second question. "iatrics" is a suffix derived from greek "iatros" which means doctor or healer or physician so this is used for medical specialties. "ology" is the "study of" so it could have be used interchangeably, over the years as these words came into being, for medical specialties; probably the suffix that sounded better was adopted. There is also the suffix "dontist" eg. orthodontist, periodontist for different specialties of dentistry. And don't forget the good old physician. Sandman30s (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I would have to disagree about orthopod being the origin of orthopaedic; in my experience orthopod is an affectionately dismissive slang term used, by physicians, to refer to our surgical colleagues. A Greek colleague of mine has suggested it derives from the origins of the profession which was at first about correcting abnormalities in childhood posture. I think you're probably spot on that -ology/-iatrics are chosen according to the sound of the resulting word; onciatrics and paediology just sound wrong! Thanks, Od6600 (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paed- comes from a Greek word meaning "child", pod- (as in podiatry) comes from a Greek word meaning "foot", and (o)dont- comes from a Greek word meaning "tooth". These are the oblique stems (the nominative singular forms listed in dictionaries were different). AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek origins for "ortho" mean straight and for "pod" mean foot for literal translation of straightening or correcting the foot......

Uknown phrase in unknown language

What does "Kak vi poivaete" mean? I don't know what language it's in, and I'm unsure about the third word. The first two are right, I think. It sounds Slavic. Thanks in advance. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's certainly slavic. the first two words mean "How are you..."? Are you sure you use the appropriate alphabet? Most of the slavic languages usualy use the Cyrillic alphabet, except for Croatian (and other few slavic languages) which use the Latin alphabet, so if you've used the appropriate alphabet then it's probably Croatian. Hope it helps. Eliko (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a miss-spelled transliteration of "как вы поживаете?" - Russian for "how are you?" (lit: how do you live?), but I suppose it could be from another Slavic language altogether. Koolbreez (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(snigger) - you mis-spelled mis-spelled as miss-spelled (couldn't resist this one). -- JackofOz (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a young woman had done it you could have said "miss mis-spelled mis-spelled as miss-spelled, but being English I preferred mis-spelt". -- Q Chris (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if the latin alphabet in which the sentence is written is the original one, then the sentence is supposed to be Croatian, and then the first two words mean: "How do I create more". Eliko (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the Slavic languages usually use the Cyrillic alphabet" ... except Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Croatian, Kashubian. i.e. about half of them. And are you saying that 'vi' is a Croatian verb form meaning 'I create more'? --ColinFine (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that they are about half of them.

"Kak" means: how do I create; "vi" means: more.

Eliko (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko, in which language do these words mean these things? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian. Eliko (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 15 modern Slavic languages with a non-deprecated ISO 639-2 code, which seems to be as neutral a definition of what counts as a language (as opposed to a dialect) as anything. Of these, 9 are usually written in the Latin alphabet, 5 usually in the Cyrillic alphabet, and 1 (Serbian) can be written in either.

Latin

Bosnian
Croatian
Czech
Kashubian
Polish
Slovak
Slovenian
Sorbian, Upper
Sorbian, Lower

Cyrillic

Belarusian
Bulgarian
Macedonian
Russian
Ukrainian

Either

Serbian

So if each language gets an equal "vote", well more than half of the Slavic languages are written in the Latin alphabet. Even if we wanted to be more conservative in our definition of language and lump Croatian and Bosnian in with Serbian, Kashubian in with Polish, and Upper and Lower Sorbian together, the score would still be 5-5-1, i.e. half Latin, half Cyrillic. However, if each language's "vote" is proportionate to its number of speakers, then of course Cyrillic wins because there are so many Russian speakers and so few Sorbian and Kashubian speakers. —An gr 05:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Russian.^MY♥_INchile 01:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish translation

Is this a name of a book? Uträkning huru Stämplade Pappers-afgiften bör betalas år 1777 och de följande åren. -and- Kongl. Nummer-Lotterie Directionens Kungörelse, Angående Någre Författningar, som wid detta Kongl. Lotterie komma at i akt tagas.__Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a set of instructions. the first and fifth words are unidentifiable, and the same is with the "Kongl." which is probably a brief spelling of a longer word.

Here is the translation (while leaving the unidentifiable words at their original positions):

Uträkning whether Stamps Paper afgiften should be paid for years 1777 and the following years. - and-Kongl. Number-Lottery Direction Order, Subject Some Statutes, which with this Kongl. Lottery come at the opportunity attendance.

Eliko (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Üträkning = calculation, afgiften = tax / duty, Kongl. = (guess) an abbreviation for royal. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the last word a passive/reflexive verb, 'be taken'? --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The last part would be better as which at this Royal Lottery will be into use taken. The word use in my translation isn't great either. The phrasing is obviously a bit archaic. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself here: The combination of the last the words can be found in ~~contemporary~~ modern swedish as the single word iakttagas, which basically means be observed. With that in mind, the last part should be interpreted as which at this Royal Lottery will be adhered to. ColinFine's interpretation of the word tagas is still correct. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "Kongl", in this sense, mean something like "Royal"? I know Norwegian for "king" is "Kong", and "Königlich" is German for "Royal". Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see Cookatoo's comment...at least I'm not the only one to have this guess :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be book titles - or pamphlets, or whatever, some set of instructions for these things may well be published in book form, especially if the Stamp Tax was hard to calculate. "Calculation of how the Stamp Tax should be paid in 1777 and the following years" - and - "Royal Number Lottery Direction Announcement, Concerning Some regulations (not sure of this word) that will be observed in relation to this Royal Lottery." Seems like slightly archaic Swedish, may well be around 1777-ish (I'm not a native speaker though). Jørgen (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visitor Center

Hello. While working on Laie Hawaii Temple‎, I came across four different forms of "Visitor Center":

Visitor Center
Visitors Center
Visitor's Center
Visitors' Center

I want to use the spelling favored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but even that is hard to find out. They seem to favor "Visitors' Center" in many sources, but the other three are commonly used. Can anyone find out the standard term for the LDS visitor center? Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has "Visitors' Center". Gary King (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gary. I'll go ahead and make the change. And of course, when people complain about it, I'll give them your name. :-) Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section of Private Eye's letters pages dealing with readers' corrections—"Pedants Corner"—has recently entertained such a volume of correspondence on whether an apostrophe was necessary for the title of the section, and if so, where it should appear, that the editors took to moving an apostrophe about the letters of pedants at random every issue for several months, before renaming the section "Pedantry Corner" and declaring correspondence closed. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Not a bad solution. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gernerally speaking none are incorrect because all have arguments to support them. With LDS specifically try contacting the LDS Newsroom. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]