Language desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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.

January 11

IPA help?

Could someone with a fluent knowledge of IPA translate La Plus Que Lente into IPA? It is in French (to state the obvious). Thanks. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's [laplyskəˈlɑ̃t]. It could also be [laplykəˈlɑ̃t]; but the better pronunciation is with the [s], as in plus-que-parfait.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Noetica! :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File Translation Needed

Translation is needed for an image/file. This image/file: File:Mapa_Lenguas_del_Mundo.png needs to be translated into English (I could not link it somehow, so I just bolded and italicized it). I found it on the only page it is used on, Linguistic map. I believe that it should be in English rather than any other language since it is being used on the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the file should be removed from that article until it is in English, or just replaced when/if the English file is made. It should be uploaded as a separate file, rather than edited from it's current version. I hope this problem can be solved as soon as possible. Mattokunhayashi 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattokunhayashi (talk • contribs)

Here is one way to link to the file: File:Mapa Lenguas del Mundo.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text as it appears in Spanish.

Lenguas del Mundo

Lenguas afroasiáticas
- Lenguas bereberes
- Lenguas chádicas
- Lenguas cushíticas
- Lenguas semíticas
Lenguas altáicas
- Coreano
- Japonés
- Lenguas mongólicas
- Lenguas tungús
- Lenguas túrquicas
Lenguas amerindias
Lenguas australianas
Lenguas austroasiáticas
Lenguas austronesias
Lenguas caucásicas
Lenguas dravídicas
Lenguas esquimo-aleutas

Lenguas indoeuropeas
- Albanés
- Armenio
- Lenguas bálticas
- Lenguas celtas
- Lenguas germanas
- Griego
- Lenguas índicas
- Lenguas iranias
- Lenguas romances
- Lenguas esclavas
Lenguas joisanas
Lenguas niger-congo
Lenguas nilo-saharianas
Lenguas paleosiberianas
Lenguas papúes
Lenguas sino-tibetanas
- Lenguas chinas
- Lenguas tibeto-birmanas
Lenguas tai-kadai
Lenguas urálicas
Vasco

-- Wavelength (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text translated into English. Some links are redirected, and I added the word language to some entries to make direct links. Chinese languages is redirected to Chinese language.

Languages of the world

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic map has links to versions in eight other languages, of which versions I found maps of this type in three.

The Basque version Hizkuntza atlas - Wikipedia, entziklopedia askea. uses

Fitxategi:Languages of Europe.png - Wikipedia, entziklopedia askea. (a map of Europe with English text).

The French version Carte linguistique - Wikipédia uses

Fichier:Languages of Europe.png - Wikipédia (a map of Europe with English text).

The Japanese version 言語地図 - Wikipedia uses

ファイル:Languengl.gif - Wikipedia (a map of the Earth with English text).

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finno-Ugric languages seem to be missing. And I'm afraid I have to bristle a bit about the label Amerindian languages First if you link to Indigenous languages of the Americas you'd include Inuit and related (which might actually be appropriate in this case0 Then why not label it as such. Even though there is a Native American name controversy there are those who find being called "Indian" (no, not from India! =:-( ) quite offensive. Just because there are still people who are unhappy with the African American label and there are traditional used like United Negro College Fund should nevertheless not encourage us to use that in new page names. (Geez, I start sounding like my aunt! Scary though!)_Lisa4edit--76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finno-Ugric languages and Samoyedic languages are combined in Uralic languages.

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used Amerindian languages as a translation of the Spanish. Eskimo-Aleut languages are a separate group. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the link to Indigenous languages of the Americas is a bit too inclusive. And I still think "Amerindian" is an unhappy label. I agree it's a mess, though. Our pages tiptoe around the issue by splitting into smaller sub-units. That might also be useful since AFAIK South American native languages are quite distinct from North and Meso American ones. So how about splitting the English equivalent of the Spanish page into 2 subunits Native languages of North and Meso America and Native languages of South and Central America That would still leave it open to challenges of North America including Eskimo-Aleut languages and Hawaiian (language) which would be under Austronesian. But at least no one could expect a Hindi dialect. We should keep in mind that this page might still be up when the number of ethnic Indians (from India) far outnumbers native Americans (indigenous) in America. BTW the Spanish list seems to somewhat duplicate List of language families. Does OP want to create a new page analogous to the Spanish one? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Oops reading the original post might have helped with the last bit. Somehow I didn't see the Post above the list. :o--76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amerindian languages is a designation selected by linguists, regardless of some Wikipedians' ideas about inclusiveness or offensiveness. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and note that the Eskimo-Aleut languages are generally not included among the Amerindian languages. If there's a reason to object to the term, it's not that the word is offensive, it's that it's a geographic grouping rather than a linguistic one. There are dozens of language families included in the label "Amerindian", most of which everyone except Joseph Greenberg agrees are unrelated to each other. —An gr 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a map of the Earth with English text at File:Human Language Families (wikicolors).png.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A map of Earth with English text is at File:English-as-Official-Language.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia uses File:Languengl.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I misformed my question. I was trying to ask if there was anyone who would translate the "text" in the file into English and create a new image with said translated text in place of the other languages' text. Does everyone understand it in this way? I hope the debate(s) can be resolved soon. I think I should not re-create the file in my name unless nothing is done about it before Sunday. If Sunday does come and the file is not translated, I shall then take the responsibility onto my own to do so. Will a good photo-editor do something about it, please? Take it off my shoulders. Mattokunhayashi 03:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattokunhayashi (talk • contribs)

meaning of yad-dast in Persian

What would yad-dast (or yad dast?) would literally mean in Persian? 59.91.254.108 (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seperately, yad means memory, and dasht (with sh not s) is a form of infinitive, meaning have. Together they mean note, record, register. In short, something that you write to keep in memory. --Omidinist (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Dasht-e Lut and Dasht-e Kavir related to dasht meaning "have"?

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. dasht in yad-dasht is pronouced with a long a, like a in car. The other dasht in the name of those two deserts is pronounced with a short a, as in cat. --Omidinist (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padre santo

In the Latin American dub of the Simpsons episode Mountain of Madness, it sounds like Homer twice addresses Mr. Burns as padre santo. Does this term have some slang meaning that I'm unaware of? Lantzy ^talk 06:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes used sor of like our "holy smokes" or similar exclamations. Here however it is used as a faux honorific sort of like calling a colleague "big Kahuna" or "esteemed master". See for example Milkbreath's use in WP:RD/M#Philadelphia Corridor, why "Philadelphia"? -76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

versus (v. or vs.)

I'm not having much luck finding the difference between the "versus" (v. or vs.). I know there is a difference (for uses), I just can't remember what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there is much difference, except that "v." is more likely to be encountered in a professional legal context... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few years ago (well, twenty) there was an article on this very question in the New York Times which the OP may find helpful. This broadly agrees with AnonMoos. Anyway, I always use v. myself, in italics when available, but we can also notice that some lawyers write "– v. –". This may or may not have its origins in some ancient tradition. Strawless ^(talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that the NYT site doesn't say who the author is; I would assume that it's William Safire... AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while v. is more often seen in legal contexts, vs. is the typical form used in sports contexts. (For example, in a tabular listing, you might see a game written as Eagles vs. Giants.) — Michael J 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I feel obliged to point out that in video gaming, "versus" has been reinterpreted as a 3rd person singular present verb, from which the infinitive "to verse" has been back-formed. Wiktionary doesn't have that meaning yet, but Urban Dictionary does (and I've heard my nephews use it that way too). —An gr 20:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that while North Americans normally use "vs." in sports contexts, in Britain one is more likely to see "v." -- or rather "v", since they have also given up on punctuating abbreviations. --Anonymous, 22:18 UTC, January 11, 2009.

See Category:Lawsuits. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of environmental lawsuits. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia it was traditionally "vs." or "vs", but now we're often seeing "v." or "v". Regardless of the spelling, it was always spoken as "versus". But of recent times sports commentators have taken to saying "vee" ("Sydney Swans vee Collingwood"). These are the same ~~cretins~~ persons who refer to a game that's literally only just finished 5 seconds ago - or even sometimes while the game is still in its dying stages - as "a famous victory". We used to have Arlotts but all we have today is harlots. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Benaud excepted. And some others. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I began a law degree in 1974 (in England), one of our lecturers carefully explained to us that 'v' was to be pronounced 'and', not 'vee'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. When the movie Kramer vs. Kramer was around, I had a friend who was studying law, and he insisted on referring to it as "Kramer and Kramer". We debated this for weeks. I said he would have been right in any other context, but since it was the name of a movie, which was always referred to as "K. versus K.", he was being hypercorrect. He'd come into work and pointedly say "Good morning, Jack. Have you had a chance to see "Kramer and Kramer" yet?". We're still friends, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition [Shivoo or Shavoo, Australian]

Shivoo or Shavoo is an Australian colonial slang word, so I'm told. What was/is it's definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deezle9 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's a rowdy party. [1]. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm Australian, but I've never heard that one. OED:

shivoo [also chivoo; variation of shiveau, with same meaning] A celebration, a party, a spree. b. A disturbance, a row.

Australian National Dictionary (a big Oxford publication, about 820 pages: not cited enough, but wonderful!) says it comes from French chez vous ("at your place"). It also records it as a verb, meaning "celebrate", or "entertain [someone]".

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the time oz was using it correctly, it came out as a film The Last Days of Chez Nous and lingers on in the short form of "Cheryl": "Shez" or "Chez" :) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this thing have a name?

This thing: § Does it have a name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Section sign. Snazzy... Nanonic (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm a big fan of The Sims and other Maxis games in which it's used as a currency symbol (for example, you start the game with §20,000 to buy and furnish a house) and ever since I discovered it was a real symbol I could insert into a document in programs such as Microsoft Word, I've been wondering what it's called and what the rest of the world uses it for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "rest of the world", "Section sign" is correct for English-speakers, but in some parts of "the world" (specifically, parts of Europe) the meanings of the section sign § and the paragraph sign ¶ are interchanged. --Anonymous, 23:22 UTC, January 11, 2009.

I've run into that. Does anyone know how that happened?--76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glore

When trying to translate a William Erskine poem in french, we found the word glore which does not seem to be in the dictionnaries. Can somebody give an equivalent? here is the poem:

Rave, ye fierce winds, ye angry furges, roar;
Climb the rude cliffs that circle Kilda's shore.
The tempest rolls along the troubled heaths,
The lightning glares, and yet Matila breathes.
Blasting the groves the flame-wing'd torrents speed,
Yet glide innocuous o'er this guilty head.
Yes, I have scorn'd thy laws, in love sublime,
And glore in th'inexpiable crime!
Strike, strike this tortur'd heart, this den of care,
And bear me from the world, -and from despair!

Thank you Dhatier (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking my neck out, I'd say it's Scottish English for "gloried". In The Scottish Review there is an epitaph from 1640 with the word, where it clearly means "glory". I'm guessing that it conjugates not, or that poetic license is at work, for meter's sake, in "have glore in", meaning "have gloried in". The OED defintion for "glore" doesn't fit, that being something like "glare", to stare. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version found in The Poetical Register and Repository of Fugitive Poetry for 1803 (second edition) has glory, not glore. (It also has Matilda, not Matila). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: We're giving the translators two different versions. The way I read it, the "have" in the previous line extends to the "glore", making it present perfect (have participle): "And gloried in th'inexpiable crime!" The one you link to (I downloaded the pdf, and I couldn't find this stanza) seems to have it simple present: "And glory in th'inexpiable crime!" I'd need to see the whole poem before deciding one way or the other. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the version I linked to is identical to Dhatier's version above. Does this link work for you? (otherwise, the poem starts at the bottom of page 363) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "glore" can be past participle. In both English and Scots, denominative verbs are usually weak, and weak verbs take a dental suffix in the past participle; the past participle of a verb "glore" would thus have to be "glored" in English and "glorit" in Scots (and the rest of this poem looks like English, not Scots), so the meaning here has to be "I have scorned thy laws (in the past) and I (still currently) glory in the inexpiable crime". —An gr 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it now (ta, Sluz), and I'll buy that. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glory also fits the meter better than glore, and although Erskine was Scottish, the rest of the poem seems to be fairly standard English. Lesgles (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Named for

I occasionally come across this phrase in Wikipedia and no matter how often I see it, it still sounds wrong. Something is named after something else generally because the thing being named also came after the other person or thing in time. What is the etymology of this phrase? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary calls "to name a child for (= after)" "now U.S." and Scottish. (I'll bet "in years" grates on your ears, too.) A quotation from 1800 has a girl being "...named for the mother of..." someone. The little words like "for" wiggle through our nets. It's usually impossible to trace their meanderings. And Idiom has the force of a glacier. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other short forms of names

The question above got me to wondering, is there a term for the relatively recent trend of calling someone (usually a celebrity) by the first initial and the first syllable of the last name, such as J-Lo or A-Rod? — Michael J 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You already asked this over two years ago. (still no answer, sorry ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But see acronym and initialism. Strawless ^(talk) 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused wording of a measurement

In an instruction for a school activity I'm doing, I'm told to mark a field off on the floor "50 cm square." But what does that mean? 50 square centimeters (i.e., a 5cm x 10cm rectangle), or a square that is 50cm x 50cm (which would be 2,500 square centimeters)?

I can't ask my instructor this question now, and I remember that when it was asked in the classroom, there wasn't a definite answer. Does x cm square mean one measurement in particular, or is it ambiguous?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 19:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it means a square that's 50 cm on each side (2500 cm²). —An gr 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely that. The distinction between:

50 square metres - an area, that could belong to any old shape (circle, triangle, irregular shape, square ...), and
50 metres square - a description of a shape by specifying (a) that it's a square, and (b) the length of the side

was drummed into me at school so effectively that I can still remember the name of the teacher who did the drumming in. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd never heard of anything referred to as x units square until this assignment. Meh. Thank you!--The Ninth Bright Shiner 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context frequently helps in distinguishing meaning in such situations. For example, if the activity called for you to stand on or place a sheet of paper within the "50 cm square", one could do so easily with a square 50 cm on a side, but you might have difficulty doing so for a square 7.07 cm on a side (7.07 cm * 7.07 cm = 50 cm²) -- 76.201.154.133 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then, they shouldn't really be referring to the latter as "50 cm square". It's not a "50 cm" square. It's a square of area 50 square centimetres. It might be referred to as a "50 square centimentre square". A centimetre and a square centimetre are completely incommensurable measurements. One is a length, the other is an area. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following hits are found with a search on "foot square" in OED:

1 a1300 axle-tree: of wood, a foot square, and 60-foot high.

[2 1714 duodecimal, a. and n.: of a square foot, square inches, etc.]

3 a1000 float, n.: is eighteen foot square and one deep.

4 c888 floor, n.1: is eighteen Foot square and one deep.

5 a1661 hath-pace: of fourteen foot square, on the midst of which is

6 1575 hautboy, hoboy: e planted a Foot square Plant from Plant, and the

7 1398 log, n.1: ut 10 or 11 foot square purposely built for him.

8 1889 organette: of about a foot square.

9 1554 pad, n.3: ff, the 100-foot-square pad must be two-and-one-ha

10 a1300 pane, n.1: one about a foot square.

11 1768 panopticon: be a single foot square, on which man or boy shall

12 1575 pilaster: base a too foot square,+a square pilaster rizing

13 c1250 plate, n.: ite plate a foot square, sunk level with the groun

14 1561 pyramidally, adv.: base a too foot square, & hy,+a square pilaster r

15 a1150 rod, n.1: od 16 1 / 2 Foot square, 1 1 / 2 Bricks.

16 c1440 rosemary: ortion 75 A foot square of a Rosemary-Field may be

17 1497 scuttle, n.2: Hatch of a Foot Square in the Waste Hatch or Wate

18 1507 spit, n.3: g my hole 4 Foot square, but no deeper than one Sp

19 1678 spoonbill: t,+that one foot square of mortality, with an aqua

20 13.. square, a.: of wood, a foot square, and 60-foot high.

21 1420 stringer: tringer one foot square.

22 967 stub, n.: dthe of One Foot Square at the Stubbe.

23 c1440 tiling, vbl. n.: ured by ten Foot Square.+ Three Bushels of Lime wi

24 1698 tulsi: built up a Foot Square of Mud, where they plant C

25 c1200 waste, n.: Hatch of a Foot Square in the *Waste Hatch or Wat

The one enclosed in square brackets is anomalous; but the others support the usage X unit[s] square, for a square each of whose sides is of length X unit[s]. I agree with JackofOz: this is standard usage, and it is not a matter of context.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]