Language desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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 30

"s' ans s's" usage

I'm confused about when to use "s'" and "s's". For example

It was Havensons's car

OR

It was Havensons' car

♫Death gle an er 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always believed it to be Havensons', but I've certainly seen both. Grsz ¹¹ 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second one. Wrad (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!

Is Havensons plural, so that you mean the car of the Havensons? In that case, you should perhaps have written It was the Hav...; and then it should certainly be the second.
Is Havensons singular (though I don't see how it could be)? In that case, opinions differ. I like the second one myself; but see discussion at Apostrophe.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my technical writing textbook, "At the end of a singular word, or of a plural word that does not end in s, add an apostrophe plus s to indicate the possessive. Single-syllable nouns that end in s take the apostrophe before an added s."

Correct: "People's", "Emma's", "Women's", and "Chris's"

"Do not add s to words that already end in s and have more than one syllable; add an apostrophy only."

Correct: "Aristophanes'"

"At the end of a plural word that ends in s, add an apostrophe only."

Correct: "Cows'", "Jacksons'"

That should cover pretty much any situation. Useight (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Useight. But you could be excused. :) Don't believe everything your textbook says. Some of our articles are way ahead of such textbooks. Apostrophe is one of them.

Those rules certainly would not cover every situation! Look at this:

His distress' duration was short, and his success' time was soon to come.

Never mind whether or not this sentence is clumsy, or should be reworded somehow. It is a grammatically correct sentence – except for the strange possessives without final s. But this is what the rules you cite would demand. In fact, most writers and editors would write what most people actually say, for these possessive nouns:

His distress's duration was short, and his success's time was soon to come.

There are other special circumstances with words ending in s (or words with other endings that are pronounced /s/ or /z/, or endings with silent s, x, or z). See Apostrophe.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, Noetica, I'm wondering whether this is about a person named Havenson, or a person named Havensons, or multiple people named Havenson, or multiple people named Havensons. Havenson seems to be a well-attested surname; Havensons does not. But let's assume both names exist. The 4 possibilities (with 3 variants) would be:

a person named Havenson - It was Havenson's car
multiple people named Havenson - It was the Havensons' car (or the Havensons's car, depending on how you actually say it)
a person named Havensons - It was Havensons' car (although, some would say Havensons's so they'd write that, perfectly fine)
multiple people named Havensons - It was the Havensonses' car (it's possible, but I doubt anyone would take the trouble to say Havensonses's, so I can't see that appearing in print, except for this example).

Options 2 and 3 show that it's crucial to use "the" where appropriate; otherwise "Havensons'(s)" could be referring to a single person named Havensons, or multiple people named Havenson. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racine translation from Sartre

In Jean-Paul Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew he quotes someone as saying that a Jew is "forever incapable of understanding this line of Racine:
Dans l'Orient désert, quel devint mon ennui."
What does it mean and why can't I understand it? Phil Burnstein (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line is from Racine's play Bérénice, I, 4:

Rome vous vit, Madame, arriver avec lui.

Dans l'Orient désert quel devint mon ennui!

Je demeurai longtemps errant dans Césarée,

Lieux charmants où mon coeur vous avait adorée.

This is part of a speech by Antiochus (a king), addressing Bérénice (a queen), with whom he is in love. The lui is Titus, rival of Antiochus. Here is my translation into hastily rhymed pentameters:

Rome witnessed your arrival, him with you.

The lonely East! How great my sadness grew!

I wandered long, and Caesarea crossed:

My heart's old haunts. Where once I'd loved, I've lost.

More literally, the line goes like this:

Dans l'Orient désert quel devint mon ennui!

In the deserted East, what my weariness became!

Why does Sartre say what he says? I'd need to look at context. But see also here, and several other interesting finds from Google Books. Why couldn't you understand it? Because while the sentiment is clear enough, the precise application by Sartre seems more than a little obscure.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Sartre was quoting Charles Maurras, which may help. See this Google Books result. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Adam. The snippet I linked to suggested that also. I had also seen the piece you link to, but I wasn't sure that Sartre was actually quoting Maurras, or to what precise end he was quoting his source. Have you checked Sartre's text? In fact the line is often quoted, it seems; and it is possible that the route is circuitous and many-pathed.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an example of the irrationalist idea, popular among anti-semites at the time, that however well Jews may integrate into a country, they remain incapable of possessing a true, intuitive understanding of the nation and its heritage. 67.166.166.28 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks plausible, Anon; but see Adam's citation for ~~another~~ a somewhat different interpretation. The author (Elie Kedourie) seems to think it is a general point about not understanding French poetic language.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The relevant passage in Sartre, which someone has quoted in English on the Web:

The anti-Semite can conceive only of a type of primitive ownership of land based on a veritable magical rapport, in which the thing possessed and its possessor are united by a bond of mystical participation; he is the poet of real property. It transfigures the proprietor and endows him with a special and concrete sensibility. To be sure, this sensibility ignores eternal truths or universal values: the universal is Jewish, since it is an object of intelligence. What his subtle sense seizes upon is precisely that which the intelligence cannot perceive. To put it another way, the principle underlying anti-Semitism is that the concrete possession of a particular object gives as if by magic the meaning of that object. Maurras said the same thing when he declared a Jew to be forever incapable of understanding this line of Racine:

Dans l'Orient désert, quel devint mon ennui.

But the way is open to me, mediocre me, to understand what the most subtle, the most cultivated intelligence has been unable to grasp. Why? Because I possess Racine - Racine and my country and my soil. Perhaps the Jew speaks a purer French than I do, perhaps he knows syntax and grammar better, perhaps he is even a writer. No matter; he has spoken this language for only twenty years, and I for a thousand years. The correctness of his style is abstract, acquired; my faults of French are in conformity with the genius of the language.

That is about language-as-embedded-in-heritage, is it not? I suppose there are subtle distinctions to be drawn here; and some have to do with race (already a dubious notion) applied to Jewishness. Old-fashioned notions. See one modern application here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks and good wishes to you all. Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English to Chinese translation

How would you translate "peace out", said as a farewell greeting, to Chinese?121.72.170.238 (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how would you translate it into English?

:)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just put a comma between the two words, and it may be clearer ("out" as in radio sign-off, I assume...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Wiktionary, which however gives no etymology. To the OP, generally you can't expect phrases like this to have equivalents in other languages. You could probably translate "may peace be with you; end of transmission" into Chinese, but it won't be a colloquial way of saying goodbye, much less one with the specific cultural connotations of "peace out." Context might help—why do you want/need a translation of this phrase? (If it's for a tattoo, I recommend against it.) -- BenRG (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on that. ;) I'm making surtitles for a musical. This line is said as a group of rappers finish their rap and leave the stage. If there's no translation, I'll just use "再見!".121.72.170.238 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar discussion a while back about a tattoo that was supposed to say "peace" in Chinese or Japanese. Instead it says "flat". There are plenty of untranslatable phrases. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "chill out"? It reminds me of other -out terms such as freak out, weird out, pass out, fall out, some being slang and some conventional. Peace out is less common I'd think. Chinese would need something that equals the oz term "take it easy". Does it have anything like that? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese, I believe the term for "chill out" is 冷靜, which is synonomous to "calm down". ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

冷靜 is not a colloquial term though. 121.72.170.238 (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the more oral among us, 冷靜 is lěng jìng in pinyin. Sort of "cold tranquil".

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mum recommended "得閒飲茶" (lit. when [you] have time [lets go] yum cha)[note: a set phrase said as a farewell, not intended as a real invitation to yum cha]. While it is not an exact translation, I hope it can get some of the tone across. 121.72.170.238 (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of suggestions, depending on what “peace out” is supposed to mean – 安心 (ān xīn): at ease / to feel relieved / to set one's mind at rest / to keep one's mind on something. “Be at ease.” 安定 (ān dìng) stable / quiet / settled / stabilize / maintain / stabilized / calm and orderly. “Be cool.” DOR (HK) (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barfußroute

I'm looking for an English term for a sea lane that is called Barfußroute in German. It has nothing to do with the Barefoot mailman but refers to a sailing route aroud the world along the trade winds from the Canaries across the Atlantic to the West Indies, through the Panama Canal and the South Sea to Australia, across the Indian Ocean, through the Sues Canal and back to the Canaries. --EvaK (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone is wondering, according to the German article EvaK linked to, the route gets its name from the fact that the climate and weather are so warm that passengers can walk around barefoot on deck. This site says that "Americans" call it Coconut Milk Run. See here, for example. (The German article has been nominated for deletion, by the way). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the ARC / Atlantic Rally for Cruisers, which takes advantage of these trade winds. However, no serious term is given for the route of this transoceanic event in any of the other Google hits I checked.

The term "milk run" is used once or twice and Sluzzelin´s "CMR" seems to be used primarily for the Mexico/Polynesia/NZ leg of the ARC. --62.47.157.171 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, not logged in: --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for some stuff and references to save the German article. With a map and one or two more references it would be a valid stub. You've already helped me, thanks. --EvaK (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo EvaK. This [1] site has a map (from Jan. 2008) which you probably could recreate for the German article. Due to continental drift it all looks completely different now, of course :o) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, we've a map workshop in de-wiki, they may interpolate it. ;) --EvaK (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian language query: Dolgozók vs Munkás

What would be the difference in generic meaning between Magyar Dolgozók Pártja and Magyarországi Munkáspárt? At present one is at Hungarian Workers Party and one at Hungarian Labour Party, but I think that difference might be rather arbitrary. Perhaps one should be 'Toilers' or 'of Labour'. Also, whats the difference between Magyar and Magyarországi? --Soman (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even without my knowing these particular bodies nor the Hungarian language, I'll observe that:

In canonical translations of political party names from any language to English (or other), "Workers" (or "People's") may be a code for Communist and "Labor" for something along the lines of Social Democratic.
Translators rely on such parties' own translations of their names into whatever target language, rather than coming up with an ad lib "correct" translation.
Retaining historical translations—perhaps with an added inline gloss, footnote, or bracketed translator's/editor's note—is a (or the) reliable way to assure uniformity of information access, i.e. anticipating future searchability. This is particularly true where parties' name changes indicate a historical and/or ideological split.

I'd suggest you post this query on the Talk pages in this and/or the Hungarian Wikipedia, the latter either in ELF or with the aid of that WP's "Embassy." -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note (my Hungarian is not very good, but I like the language all the same!): Dolgozók is possessive partitive of the noun workers (i.e. the people who work) ~~while the noun munka means work (i.e. not the people). So the difference doesn't look completely arbitrary.~~ (while munkás also means worker (the person), so I'm right were we started. Sorry :) The difference between dolog and munka, both meaning work, is not crystal-clear to me, but it seems that munka is more often used in connection with employed work, with a contract and payment, while dolog perhaps can also mean other kind of work (iskolai dolgozat means schoolwork, for example). Deborahjay is correct, however: you're likely to get a good response at one of the places she suggested, and maybe also at WP:HUN. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Hungarian is not what it ought to be either, Sluzzelin. But as I understand it the primary meaning of dolog is "thing", whence "affair", whence "business", whence "work, job". And isn't munka more rooted in the physical: so "labour", "exertion", etc.? Munkabirás, as a term in physics and elsewhere, means "energy". It seems natural that Communist terminology would use words derived from munka; and it does, I think.

Magyar and Magyarországi? I think the first means simply "Hungarian", while the second is more like "of Hungarian nationality". Magyarország is Hungary, the country.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Hungarian. magyarországi means "from Hungary" only, while magyar means "Hungarian". The first term refers only to something or somebody who is from Hungary (but it doens't mean they are Hungarian), and the second means "Hungarian", it is, "of Hungarian nationality". From the other hand, dolgozó (pl. dolgozók) means "who is working", while munkás means the occupation of, more exactly, the class of people who are working, it is, "the workers". The second term is used generally in political meaning, while the first is just a present continuous participle for the verb "to work" in Hungarian. I hope I could help. Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, EM, I've just had a long chat with a native speaker of Hungarian – born in Hungary, but having left there decades ago. She says that magyar would be a good description of her, since she is of Hungarian "ethnicity". But she says that magyarországi would apply much more to her cousin, a Hungarian citizen living in Hungary. And the Hungarian-speaking son of an immigrant Hungarian woman (herself a magyarországi nő OR magyar nő) would be a magyar fiú but not so much a magyarországi fiú, ugye? I note that both magyarországi állampolgár and magyar állampolgár mean "Hungarian citizen", and it is understandable that the latter is far more used, since it is shorter and the suffixed elements -országi would be redundant in the context of állampolgár. Why should we not simply say this: magyar means "Hungarian", and will do for most purposes; magyarország means "Hungary"; and therefore magyarországi, formed by adding the adjectival suffix i to magyarország, more pointedly suggests an association with Hungary the country?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the strict sense, magyarországi means just "something related to Hungary" or "from Hungary", but not "Hungarian". Exactly as you said, magyar means the nationality or ethnicity, the people, and magyarországi is something in association with the country. For example magyarországi nagykövet is not the same as magyar nagykövet. The first means the embassador of a country who works in Hungary, and the second means the contrary: a Hungarian embassador who works for (and resides in) another country. It is, magyarországi can be anything in association with our coutry, but magyar is just the name of the people, ethnicity or nation. Best, --El Mexicano (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A Hungarian citizen who lives in Hungary is both magyar állampolgár and also magyarországi állampolgár. But a Hungarian citizen living in another country, is just a magyar állapolgár, meaning that he/she is of Hungarian nationality, but does not live in Hungary. --El Mexicano (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, EM. That's interesting. Thank you. Viszontlátásra!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Hungarian too. Since the grammatical part has been quite well explained above, let me add a few words from a political point of view. Basically, both of the above parties are of communist ideology. Historically, in case of many communist parties they named themselves in the "magyarországi" manner (ex. "Kommunisták Magyarországi Pártja"), because marxism says nationality is less important than social class (in fact, the former was supposed to be one of the main roots of wars). So they said they are the members (and leaders) of the international working class in Hungary, and not of Hungary. After Stalin dissolved the Comintern, and especially after the "Great Patriotic War" this distinction became less important (Stalin recognized the importance of national feelings in the support of political leaders by the people), that's why the "Kommunisták Magyarországi Pártja" (dissolved in 1943) was refounded under the name "Magyar Kommunista Párt". Hope this helps. – Winston (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the meaning of the parties' names: I think that the correct translation is the opposite: munkás means worker, but dolgozó could be translated as labour, because the latter is more general (munkás is a dolgozó, wich works in a factory, dolgozó could be a clerk, a teacher or even an engineer). But it is true, that in party names worker is coded as Communist and labour as Socialdemocrat, so we should keep the wrong translation.

The situation is rather contradictory, as the follower of the communist Hungarian Workers' Party (Magyar Dolgozók Pártja) in 1956 was the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (Magyar Szocialista Munkáspárt), so the two different Hungarian words are translated to the same English word. --Zimmy (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you speaks Spanish, the difference is the same as between trabajador (=dolgozó) and obrero (=munkás). Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all the input. From what I can read, it seems quite well-established that 'Hungarian Socialist Workers Party' was the official English-language translation of MSzMP. Does anyone have any contemporary document in English (or other non-Hungarian language) produced or co-signed by the MDP? Perhaps MDP should be moved to 'Hungarian Labour Party'? There are some google-hits using this translation of MDP, and it is a name that came about in the same era as the Communist Party of Albania becoming the Party of Labour of Albania and other similar renamings of communist parties elsewhere. And also moving Magyarországi Munkáspárt to 'Workers Party of Hungary' and Magyarországi Általános Munkáspárt to 'General Workers Party of Hungary? This would be consistent with using the translation of Munkáspárt as 'Workers Party' for the MSzMP and the current Munkáspárt. --Soman (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find any document about the official English name of MDP, but I found a good alternative at the official page of H. government: Hungarian Working People's Party. The proposed name for MSZMP and Munkáspárt are good. For the Magyarországi Általános Munkáspárt I think better is the General Party of Workers in/of Hungary or Hungarian General Party of Workers, because what is general is the party, not the worker. --Zimmy (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby, I think we can conclude that Hungarian Working People's Party was indeed the official English name of the party at the time of its existence, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Soman (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't interpret the distinction of 'General Workers Party' and 'General Party of Workers' in English in the same manner as Zimmy. For example i think the name 'United People's Party' can be well be understood as a united political party of the people. The 'National Workers Party' isn't the party of national workers, but a national party of the workers. --Soman (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German words

What is the difference, if any, between the words heer and armee? Is it that heer means "infantry", or is it a question of size, so that multiple heer would comprise an armee? 67.166.166.28 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know in German, but in Swedish there there are two words här and armé, I suppose difference in meaning could be similar. Här is more anachronistic, old-fashioned term. Armé denotes some form of modern, structured and organized military force, whilst a här is more of a mass of medieval soldiers. --Soman (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That corresponds to my nonnative intuition of German. I've only heard Heer used metaphorically or in historical or religious contexts. A modern literal army is always an Armee. —An gr 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? It looks like "Heer" is the official name of the modern German army. 67.166.166.28 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heer is the general term for the army part, ie the ground based soldiers (foot solders, tanks, etc., but not the navy or the air force). Armee - used in a military conflict - is a subgroup of the army, assembled for a particular strategic / tactic purpose. So - in German usage - you may talk of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd... Armee which may be deployed in different parts of the theatre for different military purposes.

In colloquial terms, however, Heer can be an umbrella term for the entire military forces of a nation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That table may help --EvaK (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de	en
das Heer	the army as summary of all ground troups
die Armee	an army, a host, the army as a colloquialism
die Luftwaffe	the airforce
die Marine	the navy
die Flotte	the navy or a naval fleet

What might make the issue a bit more confusing is that

in everyday usage, die Armee can also mean a summary of all ground troups (the definition given for das Heer above). Das Heer is used less often in connection with armies outside the Germanosphere. (Confirmed by google searches of "die syrische Armee" v. "das syrische Heer", "die israelische Armee" v. "das israelische Heer", same with "amerikanisch(e)" and "französisch(e)" etc. In this modern context, Heer does sound more antiquated to my ears too, just like to Angr's. (One of my reasons may also be my location: While Germany and Austria use Heer and Bundesheer, Switzerland's army is called Schweizer Armee.)
Heer can also mean a large amount or group (of more or less organized people, for example: "Ein Heer jugendlicher Fans stürmte die Bühne.")

---Sluzzelin talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the German Army was called Deutsches Heer. The people I know just talk about the Bundeswehr (which is all the armed forces together, not just the army), or "Bund" for short (mostly in the context of whether or not they managed to avoid having to serve in it). I agree with Sluzzelin that "Heer" is often used to mean a large group, much like English slew, which itself comes from the Irish word for army. —An gr 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, the GDR used the term armee, see National People's Army. --Soman (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heer is the official term for the German land forces, but I can't remember having it ever heard in everyday speech. It is used though in Austrian German because the military of Austria is officially called Bundesheer, comprising land and air forces. In Germany, Armee is usually used to refer to armed forces in general, land forces and armies from foreign countries, or when you're talking about a specific German army. You would usually use Bundeswehr oder Bund to refer to the whole armed forces, especially to the land forces. Luftwaffe and Marine are more commonly used than Heer. (Remember, I'm talking about everyday speech. I hope this is correct - I did Zivildienst.) -- 93.131.82.246 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]