Language desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

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 14

Spanish verb conjugation

Hi, I was reading an online Spanish dictionary, and they gave the word ponerse as one of the translations for the word "become". I know that poner is the infinitive and means "to put". What does ponerse mean? I can't see it on the conjugation chart for the verb. Would it be passive?

Thanks :D

Jonathan ^talk 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

se at the end of an unconjugated verb indicates that it's reflexive. se pone, me pongo, nos ponemos is how it would be conjugated. AnyPerson (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponerse is also an infinitive, and can be analyzed as "to put oneself" (or more accurately in this case "make oneself"). It's conjugated like poner but with a reflexive pronoun:

yo me pongo, tú te pones/vos te ponés, él se pone, nosotros nos ponemos, vosotros os ponéis, ellos se ponen. 67.150.245.132 (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perfect. I get it now, thanks :D Wow, I never thought that reflective verbs had their own infinitive... Jonathan ^talk 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is vos te ponés? AnyPerson (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Voseo. Means exactly the same as tú te pones, it's a regionalism. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponerse can be translated as "become" in a faithful translation. As for its usage, consider this analogy: ser:estar::hacerse:ponerse. In other words, it's like the temporary become, as in "I became sick" = "Me puse enfermo," but "Franco became the dictator of Spain" = "Franco se hizo el dictador de España" or "Franco llegó a ser el dictador de España" but never "Franco se puso...."--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but don't we wish history had made that the more appropriate phrase... - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most common example of a reflexive verb is "llamarse" which is "to call one's self". If you were to say: "my name is Pablo", you would write: "Me llamo Pablo". "To wash" (Take a bath) is another example of a reflexive verb. --PS T 11:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Spanish verbs bañarse ("to take a bath", literally "to bathe oneself") and lavarse ("to wash [oneself]") are reflexive. But English to take a bath and to take a wash are not. To bathe oneself and to wash oneself are reflexive: it's the presence of the reflexive pronoun (oneself, myself, etc.; or se, me, etc., in Spanish) that makes the verb reflexive. When to wash and to bathe mean "to wash oneself" and "to bathe oneself" they may be called middle voice, though many people don't like this new-fangled idea of English having any voice other than passive and active. See Grammatical voice.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the adjectival form of verse, please?

As in 'they gave honour to him in a versacular (sic) manner' - I need something other than poetic, please. Ta 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The OED has 'versical', but that's either rare or outdated or both. Algebraist 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pindaric? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See versicular - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED also has versifical. Avoid! Very often verse itself functions something like an adjective attributively (as in the verse portions of Hamlet). If you must use the surrounding words as they are, try this:

They gave honour to him in verse.

If you show us more context perhaps we can come up with something better.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "they eulogized him in verse"? Strawless ^(talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "They fashioned verses in praise of him"? No need to be more polysyllabic than necessary. Deor (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I don't know. It worked for Slonimsky. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all - yeah, i might end up composing the sentence differently, but was still curious about the adjectival form. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone transliterate this for me?

I need a transliteration of this. I already know what it means, because the show has subtitles, but I'd like a Romanization. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line by line:

kiokuninai

kotowa (particle form of ha)

nakattakoto

I'm sure someone who's better at Japanese will be by to proofread that for you.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Japanese speaker. There's nothing wrong with the Romanization above. Oda Mari (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-IPA pronunciation

The article Thomas Pynchon gives his last name in IPA. Can someone tell me in English how it sounds? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch-on. DuncanHill (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't guess that one, thanks DuncanHill. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before, but I can't find the thread right now. I've always said Pinch-en, with the second vowel sound being an unaccented syllable (schwa). The article says that's a "common mispronunciation", but I'm not sure how it can say that, given the guy's reclusiveness. Who knows how it should really sound? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See (and hear) Thomas Pynchon pronunciation: How to pronounce Thomas Pynchon in English.

-- Wavelength (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks guys, for all your help. Now I will puzzle out the subtle differences, coming up with...pin-shen or pintch-shen? :) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrevation?

Does the "AX" in Supercross#Arenacross_AX mean just Arenacross, in that A is just (short for) arena?96.53.149.117 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. [1] has a link at the top called "Miss AX" about "Miss Arenacross". Recury (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compare BMX. jnestorius^(talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my German

Is this correct German: "Laut der US-amerikanischen Regierung unter der Bush-Administration...". Something sounds wrong to me... Thanks for any help. --217.227.77.98 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not grammatically incorrect, but it sounds a bit "translated from English". For "during the Bush administration" I might say "während Bushs Amtsperiode". (And yes, consonant cluster fans, that word is pronounced [bʊʃs].) —An gr 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or "während Bushs Amtszeit", or maybe "während der Präsidentschaft Bushs"? I should certainly avoid using both Regierung and Administration in the way suggested, as in this context they seem to come to much the same thing. Strawless ^(talk) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker of German, but I have studied it in school for two years and taken an advanced course in the university, and had frequent conversations with native German speakers. Based on this, I personally think the last proposal, während der Präsidentschaft Bushs, is the best one. JIP | Talk 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably also drop either "US-" or "amerikanischen". "Laut der US-Regierung ..." or "Laut der amerikanischen Regierung ..." should be sufficiently unambiguous in most contexts (and better style too). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Janneman (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't think "Laut der Regierung" will fly. You either have to name a culprit "laut Regierungssprecher Whatshisname" or go with another version "Entsprechend Verlautbarungen der US Regierung" or "Laut Informationen der Bush Regierung" or "wie die US Regierung verlauten liess" or "wie aus Kreisen der Bush Regierung verlautete". Laut is either used with a person or a source of information, like a report, information, a lecture etc. "Verlauten" is used with bodies. "Bush Regierung" is used by the media if they don't have to watch their language as they would e.g. if they quoted "official statements". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That will be "laut Regierungssprecher Dingsda". Strawless ^(talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster: could you please continue the sentence you started above; as for now, I think "Gemäß Verlautbarung der US-Regierung..." could also be used. Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"hittick"?

What does "hittick" mean: Bandy#Ball_in_and_out_of_play?96.53.149.117 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's been there for over two years, I think it's a typo for "hitting". I only found wiki-mirrors when I googled "hittick" + "bandy". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The whole Free-strokes and penalty shots section was introduced in this edit. My best guess would be that "hittick" was simply a typo for "hitting". For example, see this similar section on another site. Unless somebody thinks differently, I will change the article. --LarryMac | Talk 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to think differently. I changed it now. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the" Month of Year

In Watchmen by Alan Moore, he uses the phrasing "...the March of 1965" or "...the July of 1950" and so on. Is this an Brit. English convention that I have not run across before or is this just his personal style? Dismas|^(talk) 20:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this in the work (I want to have a look at the context)? Algebraist 20:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling suggests it is a rare, old-fashioned style, but not especially British. jnestorius^(talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is rare. A little old fashioned perhaps but I wouldn't say it is out of use. --Cameron * 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the parts which were taken from Night Owl's autobiography. Between chapters III and IV. Dismas|^(talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be deliberately old-fashioned then, the autobio being written in '62. And it's Nite Owl, by the way. Algebraist 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the spelling error. I'm in class right now. Shhh... don't tell. ;) Dismas|^(talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it being used as a nice contrast in, say, "In the early winter of 1965 he did such-and-such, but in the January of 1966 he did something-else". The January reference would normally be just "January", not "the January of", but it works here. We also hear "the" in places like: "Ok, that's settled. I'll arrive on the Monday, and we'll set out for Everest on the Wednesday". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the usages here are simpler than those. I'll give them (the two I've found, at least) in full: 'Manhattan's existence was announced to the world in the March of 1960, and...' and 'I met both Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias for the first time at a charity event in the June of 1960.' Algebraist 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The writer may have been wanting to avoid "encyclopedia style" ("I met both ... in June 1960"). So he added "of" ("... in June of 1960") to give it a more conversational feel. And then went slightly overboard with "the". It's understandable, but unless he normally speaks that way, it's unnecessary in this context. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The writer is a fictional character, so we know little of how he speaks. Algebraist 00:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if only that character speaks this way, it's part of his characterisation? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird. All the examples while we were discussing it in the abstract sounded 'off' to me, but the examples from the book sound 'right'. Maybe Moore has understood something about how it's used that we haven't found yet? 79.66.46.92 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Muka"

How to translate the Finnish language word muka into English? It's a particle word meaning that the speaker is stating something he knows and admits to be false, as if it were true. For example:

Hän meni rannalle, muka lepäämään. - "He went to the beach, as if to rest" (when we all know he went there to look at the babes).

Hän maksoi hänelle 100 euroa, muka lahjana. - "He paid him 100 euros, as a supposed gift" (when we all know it was a bribe).

Onko tämä sinusta muka hauskaa? - "Do you think this is funny?" (when it's clearly offensive).

Olenko minä muka söpö? - "Am I cute?" (you know damn well I look bland).

Mitähän tästäkin muka tulee? - "Whatever shall become of this?" (it looks like nothing will ever become of it). JIP | Talk 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a single word that expresses that in English. You'd have to find various context-specific ways of indicating it in English. —An gr 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Supposedly" will work for some of them...AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's no single word. "Supposedly" will indeed work in some cases. "Allegedly", "ostensibly", or "purportedly" will work in others. In some instances no specific word is required: "Onko tämä sinusta muka hauskaa?" can simply be "Is this funny to you?", for example. This is a pretty decent example of a word that expresses in one language that there is no direct translation for in another language, even though the concept itself is in no way alien. Schadenfreude is a great example of one, though now English does of course have a word for it, thanks to the magic of loan words. (Finnish, however, has its own word for the concept: vahingonilo, literally "joy of [another's] misfortune" or "joy of [another's] accident". Hello, useless trivia!) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "pretense" ? "He went to the beach, under the pretense of needing a rest". StuRat (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double-meaning? (think Hannibal Lecter's idea of inviting a friend over for "dinner") Irony? PS I feel English does have shadenfreude of its own, it's just not as catchy. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but gloating is not the same thing as schadenfreude. When your best friend gets a big urine stain down the front of their light-colored pants and you find yourself suppressing a smile of joy, that ain't gloating -- that's schadenfreude! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is if it's my enemy! buwahaha. (Although your example might make your name ironic?) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's puns now, is it? Have you no shame, woman? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linguistic category of expressing doubt is called dubitative. We don't have a generic article yet (unless it has a different title?) Putting the verb in a marked grammatical mood is a way of doing this in some languages. I think it's the subjunctive mood in German, at least for reporting indirect speech. Other languages have a specific dubitative mood. The Finnish muka seems to be a discourse particle. A partial equivalent of muka used in the anglosphere is scare quotes, especially air quotes; these might work for two or three of your examples:

He went to the beach, for a "rest".
He gave him a €100 "gift".
?Do you think this is "funny"?

jnestorius^(talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Thistain, no I have no shame, but I have mercy and will stop at one pun. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your math suspect... but beggars can't be choosers, I suppose. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that it wobbled too but autocratically decided a repeat doesn't count. Or does it? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt that objecting on the grounds that it does would improve my situation any. ;) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CD, you are always free, object away. I agree your situation seems frail though only in this thread. I feel bad now. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that protesting would, at this point, be like waving waving a chunk of bloody steak at a starving wolf. I'd just end up regretting it... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woof! *wagging*, – Julia Rossi (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]