Language desk
< February 22	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 24 >

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.

February 23

Dita Saxova

This is really a question for our Czech colleagues. In the movie "Dita Saxova" (which is quite well-known in the Czech Republic), there is a scene at the train station where one of the girls takes a chalk and writes "R.U." on the departing train. What is the meaning of these letters? I asked several of my Czech friends and they have no idea. There is no person with these initials in the movie and this scene is not present in the novel upon which the movie is based (which I read). The only suggestion I heard so far is that it stands for "Austro-Hungarian" in Czech - however this makes no sense in the context of the movie. -- This unsigned query was posted at 23:40, February 22, 2009 by User:212.14.48.55

This is probably completely wrong, but my brain keeps telling me that the word robot was coined by Karel Čapek in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots). -- JackofOz (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an abbreviation commonly used by the Nazi regime - "Rückkehr unerwünscht", literally "return undesired". It was commonly used on the documents of people being moved to concentration camps. From what I know of the story, this would have been known to the character and would make sense in the context. If you understand Czech, it is used in context on this page, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was an unanswered question on the Humanities ref desk. It never occurred to me that this would be better answered at the Language desk! Jay (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will copy my response there in case they only check back there. Knepflerle (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Why is it that "criticism" and related words, in popular usage (as opposed to academic), generally seem to have a negative connotation? I was struck by the neutral use of the word "criticism" here: "Never before in an experience covering more than a quarter of a century in taking polls have we received so many different varieties of criticism — praise from many and condemnation from many others..." To modern ears like mine, it doesn't seem natural for "praise" to be encompassed within "criticism". So is it that "criticism" used to be neutral, and then at some point evolved to become predominately negative in popular usage? How are its cognates treated in other languages? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are movie critics, who do not always give negative reviews. We also have the word critique, although I suppose that is more academic than "criticism", but in academic circles "criticism" is also used for literary criticism, higher criticism, etc. It comes from a Greek word meaning to think, or make a judgement about something, and that is how it is typically used in French (critique) and German (Kritik); take Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for example. (I don't think French uses "criticisme" in this sense at all, actually.) I don't know why the popular connotation in English is negative...maybe because it is easier to critique something negatively? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary gives two meanings like this: criticize 1. indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way : they criticized the failure of Western nations to adequately resettle refugees | technicians were criticized for defective workmanship.

2. form and express a sophisticated judgment of (a literary or artistic work) : a literary text may be criticized on two grounds: the semantic and the expressive. The first one seems to make a judgment, the second might evaluate or give an opinion. Maybe. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Etymonline: The Eng. word always had overtones of "censurer, faultfinder.". Adam: Yes, the word critique does have pejorative connotations in French. As well as German, Dutch and the Norse languages. I think you probably have to go all the way back to Greek or the Latin intermediate (criticus) to find a version free of negative connotations. OTOH, I don't think it's exclusively used for negative criticism in any language. --Pykk (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It seems to me that in French they would use "reprocher" rather than "critiquer", but I am not a native speaker. "Criticus" reminds me of another academic usage, apparatus criticus and critical edition...in that sense it is neither positive nor negative! We also have "critical", which as an adjective means "serious". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that words can also take on a new positive connotation. The word "great", for example, once just meant "big", as in WW1, which was called "The Great War" at the time. To us that sounds silly: "What exactly was so great about it ?". StuRat (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a different, but still negative, connotation. If they translated the epithet of Ivan IV of Russia into English for the first time today, it wouldn't have come out as "Ivan the Terrible" but more like "Ivan the Menacing" or "Ivan the Fearsome". But "Terrible" was used back when it didn't mean what it does today, and has stuck. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One expression in non-academic use is "constructive criticism", which is valued enough to have positive connotations. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that has only positive connotations; except, perhaps, for someone who is closed to any and all criticism of their words/works, no matter how helpful. This is best avoided by not mentioning the word "criticism", because they have a knee-jerk reaction to that. Better to say something like "May I make a comment or two", or "I'd like to help you with that". It achieves the same purpose by getting around their ego-defences. And, of course, we critics always know better, so it's terribly important that others see it our way. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian language help, please

Please see this page on ru:. Am I right that they're mistransliterating Adam Drury's surname? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've moved it. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, it was misromanized. It should have been Друри, not Драри. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jact greek course: new vs. old edition

I've been considering doing Greek using the jact books (Reading Greek text, grammar/exercises and study guide). There's a new edition, but I hate the glossy pages. I'm thinking of using the old edition, but I don't want to find it out of date and unusable if I end up mixing and matching (old grammar exercises book along with new answer key, for example). This could be required due to availability of the various books. Can anyone tell me if the material has substantially changed, or are they both fairly similar, so that mixing editions would be viable? I would especially like to know how close the exercises are, because I might end up with and old grammar/ exercises, and new answer book. Thanks in advance. It's been emotional (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JACT is Joint Association of Classical Teachers. Reading Greek aims to teach students to read fifth- and fourth-century Attic Greek, so no edition will ever be exactly out of date. To find out whether the old edition still ties in with the present course materials, I should ask a specialist bookshop. Strawless ^(talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is the translation of APRES MOI LE DELUGE

w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.14.146 (talk)

It can be translated as 'After me, the deluge'. Frequently attributed to either Louis XV of France or Madame de Pompadour, the phrase is sometimes said to be a comment that "Things will get worse after I am gone". It is also used as the motto of No. 617 Squadron RAF in reference to Operation Chastise. Nanonic (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Me, The Deluge —An gr 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "After me, the flood." Julia Rossi (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "deluge" is the Great Flood of the Bible used figuratively. The phrase appears in the Petit Larousse (1988) under "déluge", with the definition "indique que l'on ne se soucie pas de l'avenir" (indicates that one is not concerned with the future). So, in common parlance it is not a kind of threat but a "who cares?" Which came first, I don't know. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The Germans have adopted this saying "Nach mir die Sintflut." (translates as the same) Used to indicate one isn't happy with some fact or outcome, but can't/won't do anything (more) about it.76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Polish it's "Po mnie choćby potop" (after me, even a deluge) and it expresses the same sentiment as in French: I don't care what happens after I'm gone. Personally, I first heard this expression in a TV report about politics on Pacific islands threatened by the global warming, where it was used much more literally. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the sentence had a sort of prophetic sense: the French Revolution took place 15 years after Louis XV was dead. I am not sure if Louis XV or Mme de Pompadour meant to show a rough indifference ("I don't care what happens") about the end of their world. I think it was rather an undeceived forecast, possibly with a nuance of consolation: not to have to be there to see it. --pma (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]