Language desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8

Request for translation in Italian

Any would kindly help me translate the following text in Italian into English please ?

« Dolce paese, onde portai conforme l'abito fiero e lo sdegnoso canto e il petto ov'odio e amor mai non s'addorme, pur ti rivedo, e il cuor mi balza in tanto. Ben riconosco in te le usate forme con gli occhi incerti tra il sorriso e il pianto, e in quelle seguo dei miei sogni l'orme erranti dietro il giovanile incanto. » (Giosuè Carducci, Traversando la maremma toscana)

Thank you so much.--Passawuth (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sweet country, where I carried that proud dress and that haughty song, and the breast where hate and love never slept, now that I see you again, my heart begins to dance. I well recognize in you the familiar forms ~~I so well remember~~ with uncertain eyes between smiling and crying, and in these I follow from my dreams the erring traces after the enchanting young one".

I have taken some liberties in the translation, especially with "le usate forme" which I expanded into "the forms I so well remember" because I cannot think of an English adjective right now that has quite the same meaning as "usato" (literally it would be "used" or rather "used to" (ie, the forms I am used to) , but that doesn't fit the English sentence), but you should be able to understand the general meaning and tone of the passage from my translation. -- Ferkelparade π 12:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Familiar', perhaps?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, familiar fits perfectly. I guess I was so caught up in trying to fit "being used to" into the sentence that I couldn't see the obvious :P -- Ferkelparade π 12:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers of [FL-X]

What adjectives are there in English to refer to a population or geographic region speaking a particular foreign language? "Anglophone" and "Francophone" come to mind... Sinophone? Russophone? I'd particularly like to know what's suitable for Spanish and German (or Germanic languages), but others would be enlightening as well. And while we're at it, how might I look these up on my own, other than by sheer guesswork? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could certainly make up "Hispanophone" and "Germanophone", and I bet they (as well as Sinophone and Russophone) will get a tolerable number of Google hits, indicating that people have made them up. But that formation isn't endlessly productive, and I would certainly balk at "Yorubaphone", "Lakotaphone", and "Guugu Yimidhirrophone". The usual way of forming such adjectives in English is simply "English-speaking", "French-speaking", "Chinese-speaking", "Russian-speaking", etc. —An gr 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk, my dear Angr! Your examples, while striking, are not quite equivalent, as in the two accepted terms with which I opened my query, the names of the languages themselves are modified (Angl and Franc respectively). Knowing of these two led me to wonder if there might be others. Are there really none? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese speakers are called lusophones, and Spanish speakers Hispanic. Wikipedia does have a page for russophones, but not for sinophones. These terms seem to have geographical connotations rather than purely linguistic ones. Paul Davidson (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the populations-within-geographic-borders aspect that's relevant: I'd need to refer in writing, for example, to health, education, and welfare programs provided for different language groups in a country with several official or prevalent languages and where language may not correspond to ethnicity. Just checking my available options for concise terms. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point, and I still stick to it, is that your best bet is simply "X-speaking". You can safely refer to Israel's Hebrew-speaking, Arabic-speaking, English-speaking, Russian-speaking, etc., populations without making any unwanted implications about ethnicity. —An gr 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can place be used as a location of text

Hi! I would like to ask two questions in regard to place. Can it be used to mean either a part of a text (eg. The book was boring in many places) or different texts (eg. I have read it in many places that this is not true)? Thanks--Dami (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than my edit to your post, I don't think either of these sentences are strange.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...They may, however, not be the clearest choice in written English, depending on the register of your communication. Consider alternatives such as "..boring in many passages" and "...have read in many published sources..." -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further (after reading your User page): If your query is about editing in the English Wikipedia, I'd definitely recommend the substitutions I've suggested... and also (again, a matter of register): tedious (or similar; check a thesaurus) for boring, and numerous for many. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT) ::I agree. I personally prefer not to use 'many' in the middle of a sentence before a noun in statements. I would use it at the beginning of a sentence ("Many people say..."). I teach this practise to my foreign students, too. It just doesn't sound correct to my British ears. 'Not many', however, is fine ("There are not many people"), as is 'many' in a question ("Are there many people?").--ChokinBako (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Another view: Your first example is the ordinary way of putting it: "The book was boring in many places" (and "in many passages" is really weird). Your second example works, too, but it is better to be more specific, as Deb has it ("published sources", for example). That little struck-out "it" is interesting. It really does have to be there, but hardly anybody knows that or puts it there to the point where it sounds wrong nowadays. (Don't edit other people's posts, Chokin. This is a big rule on the RefDesks.) --Milkbreath (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Milk, I knew that. That is why I specifically wrote that I edited it, to avoid confusion. I'll stick closer to the rules from now on.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Just to clarify its a "personal" question, currently I find it too hard to copyedit an article :( --Dami (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the 'it' "really does have to be there", Milkbreath? That would be true in many languages but not, as far as I am aware, in English. I think you will be hard-pressed to find an current authority that does claim it should be there, or even could be there, in English. --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same "it" as in "I hate [it] when that happens." Fowler (or Gowers) really goes nuts on it in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, second edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965, calling it "anticipatory it" under the main heading "it". I'm not recommending it, no pun intended, but it ain't wrong, neither. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it that you are mistaken; additionally, again you have shown it that you are an inveterate prescriptionist. --Lambiam 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to actually bring out my label gun, Lambiam. Wars have started over less, certainly on Wikipedia. The truth is we're all prescriptivists, to a degree; and we're all descriptivists, to a degree. The degrees vary, that's all. But, Milkbreath, there are big differences (a) between "it really has to be there" and "it's not wrong", and (b) between "it really has to be there" and "I'm not recommending it". It's perfectly ok to change your mind, but I'm still confused and surprised that you're hanging onto this one at all. I've just read about "anticipatory it" in my 1978 Modern English Usage (Fowler rev. Gowers) and, from my reading, the above situation is not an example of it. "I have read that XYZ is the case" never needs an it, not even if you insert "in many places" after "read". If a student of mine wrote that with an it, I'd mark them wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad. Angry, I think you guys call it. (Whether I'm the other thing or not I leave to others to decide.) I am over the centerline toward prescriptive, I think, in many cases. I still say that that "it" is grammatical, but it is wrong nowadays. Nobody uses it, and it rings false, but without it the sentence doesn't parse well, which is what I meant by "it really has to be there". Not that it absolutely must be there, but in reality the grammar wants it to be there badly. I don't recommend it for a learner, but I wouldn't be suprised to find it in some older stuff, and I wouldn't fight too long with a writer who insisted on it. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get what you mean by not parsing well. In "I have read in many places that this is not true", isn't the bolded bit a classic example of an object (in this case of the verb "I have read") in the form of a declarative content clause? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent to reply to Milbreath) It is not the same 'it' as 'I hate it when that happens'. That example does not have a complementizer, and so for many people the clause cannot function as an argument of the matrix verb. The original sentence was "I have read [it] in many places that this is not true" with an explicit complementizer 'that'. Since the 'that' makes the clause into a NP, the sentence without 'it' is acceptable in all varieties of English I can think of, your own idiolect excepted, and the sentence with 'it' is deviant at least for me. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

longest english word

Some time ago, I found the complete chemical name for "titin" (189,819 letters); today, I could not find that entry; where did it go?72.228.162.250 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)joseph richardson[reply]

It's not in our article, and it shouldn't be, but there's a link in footnote 5: [1]. Algebraist 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APA citations

if I am quoting from an electronic book from google books, and I need to cite it using the apa format (author, date, name) what date should I put, the date of the publication of that particular copy of that book ( in which case it would be 1859)? or the date on which google uploaded that book. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.203.201 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to you, depending on whether you're citing it as a book or an internet source. If you're citing it as a book, use the original publishing date (1859); if as an internet source, use google's date along with the date you accessed it. I, however, am not an expert. You might want to check one of the online guides to APA style [2], but I don't think they have a standard for digital copies of printed books. Personally, I would cite as a book. Indeterminate (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word...

The word polymath, roughly, means someone who is gifted in a wide range of subjects/topics. Is there a word which refers to someone who is interested in a wide range of subjects/topics but is not necessarily good at them? --RMFan1 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilettante perhaps.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack of all trades and master of none." —Lowellian (reply) 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in, Jack of all trades, master of none :) Kreachure (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You rang? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilettante, dabbler? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've come up with anything, but I'm rather perturbed that all the suggested terms are at least mildly pejorative. is the OP looking for a term to describe a person with wide range of interests without being an expert at any of them? -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single word, but you could use Eclectic[3] as the starting point of a sentence. - X201 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiring mind?hotclaws 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few possibilities are "generalist", "pantologist", or "bibliomaniac" (the latter being more specifically relating to where such knowledge is gained from a mania for books). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what I am looking is as Deborahjay said: "a term to describe a person with wide range of interests without being an expert at any of them" --RMFan1 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the words or phrases that explicitly include the "not very skilled at them" also include the faintly derogatory implication that User:Deborahjay mentioned; you might want to pick the one that seems least this way. Here are a few more for your perusal (with Wiktionary links): "smatterer", "sciolist", "half-scholar", "sciolist"

what does 'a couple of years' mean? 2year? 2~3year? or old year?

what does 'a couple of years' mean? 2year? 2~3year? or old year? and what does mean? 2year? 121.124.4.32 (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is loosely defined. "A couple" is always more than one, but the upper limit might be anywhere between two and five, maybe six. This is what makes human-speak difficult to translate to computer-speak. JIP | Talk 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the expression "a couple" is used precisely because it's undefined. So, if you don't know how many years (or whatever) it is exactly, but you know it's only a few (probably five, tops), then you say "a couple of (years)". Kreachure (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Many Finnish bartenders have taken up the practice of saying "a couple of €" when they mean, exactly, "2€". They think saying "a couple" when they mena "two" is somehow trendy, If I gave them three to five euros, they would most certainly be surprised, but I would be nonplussed after having found out all they ever wanted was 2€. I think saying what you mean is more important than trying to sound "trendy". JIP | Talk 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most legal systems in the world would be extremely annoyed if a married couple consisted of three to five people rather than exactly two. —An gr 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple= 1 + 1, pair; of time, used inexactly. Few about four or five (small number). Several, more than two but not many. I'd say if a friend asks for a couple of dollars they mean five to 10. If a bartenders says a couple, I'd give two. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A couple" by itself means two, but "a couple of <thing>" (in North America sometimes just "a couple <thing>") is the informal idiom meaning some small number. --Anon, 09:30 UTC, June 10, 2008.

Julia, I agree with you about the basic meaning of "several". However, it's often used in Wikipedia articles to mean a great deal more than "not many", so usage seems to vary. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese? translation request

What does this say? I think it's Japanese. HYENASTE 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly copied gibberish. I see the kana for o and te followed by a nonsense symbol and then to. Perhaps someone was trying to copy the word おめでとう, "congratulations". Paul Davidson (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably otemoto (おてもと), a phrase commonly printed on the wrappers of disposable chopsticks (waribashi). --Kusunose 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kusunose! (Yes, I did find it on a chopsticks wrapper. :P ) HYENASTE 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]