Language desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7

Ordering someone or stating a preference?

Suppose you were annoyed at someone, for example, for using a digital clock and you wanted them to use an analogue clock, and then someone else (not that person) told you to, for example, "bug the people who use 7th generation consoles instead of 6th generation consoles". Are they actually ordering you to do that, or are they saying they would rather you do that? 58.170.197.97 (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I changed the heading from "Question" to "Ordering someone or stating a preference?" to make it easier for readers to scan the headings or to search the archived discussions. A question headed "Question" is like an e-mail message headed "Message". See Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox). -- Wavelength (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

It sounds to me like they're suggesting you do that. Unless they're in a position of authority over you, they can't order you to do anything (well, they can, I suppose, but it would be pointless), but they can suggest or recommend you do something. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're neither suggesting nor ordering you to bug 7th generation console users, they're bringing it up as something that they feel is just as absurd as bugging people about using digital clocks. They hope that you already know that B is absurd, that you will realise B is logically equivalent to A, and thus you will realise that A is absurd.

I'm not sure if there's a term for this. If they phrased the analogy "Would you tell someone who drove a car that they should be using a horse and buggy?" that would be a 'rhetorical question' - they're not expecting you to answer, they assume you already know the answer is 'No'. So perhaps an order that they assume you will immediately refuse, such as "Go bug...", is a 'rhetorical order'? --81.136.143.173 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like "Tell it to the judge/the Marines/the Pope" is meant rhetorically? Or even "Here's a Quarter (Call Someone Who Cares)"? +An gr 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of a word in context

What's the opposite of the form of "against" used in "What do you have against x"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.197.97 (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I changed the heading from "Question 2" to "Opposite of a word in context". -- Wavelength (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Interesting question. I don't think there's a corresponding idiom for the positive case of "having something against" X. That sort of suggests you have some evidence to support your stance, or to disprove some claim that X is making. The default position might be that you'd have no reason to have anything against X unless ... you had something against them, if you see what I mean. The opposite would need to be something like "why are in favour of X?" or "why are you supporting X?" or "why are you voting for X?" or "why do you like X?, depending on the context. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the OP's question "What is the opposite of against"? In which case I suggest "What do you have FOR x" (my emphasis). - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"by" or "at"?

What is correct?:
- Sergei Rachmaninoff by his Steinway grand piano.
- Sergei Rachmaninoff at his Steinway grand piano.

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, both are correct. Technically, "by" means that Rachmaninoff is located next to his piano, and "at" means that Rachmaninoff is sitting down in front of the keys, ready to play. Logically, Rachmaninoff cannot be at his piano without also being by his piano. (He could, however, be by his piano without being at his piano, if he was standing up.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...I should perhaps add that the reason I say "technically" is that it's a kind of a nitpick! If Rachmaninoff is leaning against his piano and someone says that he's at his piano, it's not really incorrect -- but it can be a little inaccurate or misleading, though probably not in any way that's going to make any difference to anyone. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"At his piano" is more idiomatic. It's like a dinner table. Are you "at the table" or "by the table"? It's mostly a question of whether or not you're sitting, and which way you're facing. In this case, Rachmaninoff is unambiguously at his piano. LANTZY ^TALK 04:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, 'at his piano' implies 'seated as though he has been playing or is about to do so', while 'by his piano' does not imply that, and so by Gricean implicature might suggest that he is not so seated. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily imply that to me. If I were told that someone was "seated at the piano", my mental image would be of them facing the keyboard, with their hands either on the keys or resting on their thighs. But there's more than one mental image that could qualify for "at the piano", and the picture above is one of them, imo. He's certainly not "by" the piano. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that out of the "by" or "at" the better word would be "at". But I think that "in front of" would be better than those two. Eiad77 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy

Is there a latin word meaning 'bureaucracy', or something similar? Ideally one that would have held similar negative connotations in Classical Rome? --superioridad ^(discusión) 08:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it had negative connotations, but the "scrinia" were the various imperial bureaucracies. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My research finds scrĩnium to be a box or case of some sort. [1] [2] Is there a reference, somewhere on the World Wide Web, supporting the meaning "bureaucracy"? If "bureaucracy" is an extended meaning, is there an explanation of how that meaning developed? -- Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, just Google "roman bureaucracy scrinia" (or "scrinium"). I don't know specifically how it evolved but I suppose the different ministries were departmentalized with different boxes for each of their duties. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identify the humor?

When someone writes "I HATE ALL CAPS" in ALL CAPS, what is the humor called? Is it irony? Also what is the difference b/w sarcasm n satire? --59.182.9.110 (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you examined our articles on irony, sarcasm, and satire? Note also that simple dictionary definitions may suffice for the latter question: sarcasm and satire. My understanding of the first is that "I HATE ALL CAPS" could be construed as verbal irony, but is not likely to be universally accepted as such. For the latter, sarcasm is frequently (though not always) a component of satire. — Lomn 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the caps mean the headgear cap, and could it be a pun? Oda Mari (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Muphry's law. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a thoroughly amusing link, it's not the phenomenon in question. Muphry's applies to people who criticize someone's grammer [sic]. I interpret "ALL CAPS" as an intentional statement for humorous effect. If it were accidental then I'd concur with you; I just don't think that's the scenario presented. That said, I consider the accidental version more ironic than the intentional, which is why my first post is laden with caveats. — Lomn 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Fumblerules. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe self-referential humour, assuming it was done with humourous intent, which may not have been the case. It's not uncommon for people to break their own rule in the very act of pontificating to others how they should behave. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Galations 6:1. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance. The question is about a humorous version of Epimenides paradox, so if any Bible verse was relevant, it'd think it to be Titus 1:12. --Pykk (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to Galatians 6:1 was in response to the preceding comment by JackofOz, and not to the original questions. That is why I indented my comment as I did. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find something applicable in Category:Humor. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the occasion?

"Come on in! Would you like some sweets?" "Sweets? What's the occasion? Did you get a promotion?"

In the above quote, the presence of the word occasion is O K? What does it mean? --Logicanter (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine. It just means what is the reason for offering the sweets – the assumption being that they are being offered for some special reason. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An "occasion" is when something has "occurred", so basically it is asking "What has happened?". The word "occasion" has connotations of being something special. --Tango (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needn't be an occurrence, though; the 'occasion' could be a birthday or the like. —Tamfang (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on "Huzzah!"

Huzzah! I heard this word had a meaning of: "I fight to the death." Today its common meaning is equated to "Hurrah." Was there an archaic meaning, from a different culture/language than English, matching what I heard? I know an Ethiopian who seemed to recognize it as the meaning I noted. Her expression changed immediately to a grim one when I said it and she made no denial when I defined it as noted. Brother of Attila (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah (We do have an article on almost anything. :-) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in which I have just replaced the bald claim that it had its origin in a Mongolian war-cry to the mention of this as one theory. See Talk:Huzzah for my reasons. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nice from you" or "nice of you"

The second is more common (according to google), but is the first wrong?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from some rather strained uses (eg 'That's nice from you!' meaning (ironically) something like 'I don't think you've any right to say something like that'), I would be surprised to hear 'nice from you' from any native speaker. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard from Germans, though, who are unsure which translation of von to use when mentally translating nett von dir into English. +An gr 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germans also sometimes use "from" when English speakers would use "by", such as "Now the Fifth Symphony from Beethoven we shall hear". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "German", I believe you mean "Yoda". -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

中国经济昆虫志

Is here anybody, who can transfer the Chinese term 中国经济昆虫志 into Latin letters? Thank you, 79.219.192.76 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google Translator says "China's economic insects Chi", I suspect that may not be entirely accurate! Hopefully someone that actually speaks Chinese will be along soon. --Tango (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And SysTran "helpfully" says "Chinese economical insect will". Neither of the translations seem completely loopy, though - try a Google search on the Chinese phrase then translate the resulting pages and they seem to be about insects with an effect on the Chinese economy, for example this. Where's KageTora when you need him? 86.151.150.202 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term refers to a Chinese scientific journal. Something around the lines of "The Effects of Insects on the Chinese Economy." Literally the characters would be translated: "Chinese Economy Insect Magazine." bibliomaniac 1 5 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pinyin for this is Zhōngguó Jīngjì Kūnchóng Zhì.

The official translation is "Economic Insect Fauna of China".

The literal translation would be "Chinese Journal of Economic Insects" or "Journal of Chinese Economic Insects".

"Economic insects" does not refer to parasitic bankers - it means insects which can be farmed or otherwise exploited commercially - in English probably more likely to be called "commercial insects".

No disrespect to the first couple of posters, but be wary of anyone offering you a translation via an automatic translation engine.... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both made it clear how little we thought of our machine translations. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course. It was intended as a comment about the translation engine, not the editors... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For context, see Insects#Relationship_to_humans. "Economic insects", to my mind, means insects with a measurable effect on the economy, not necessarily only ones that can be bred commercially. The term might legitimately include those with a negative effect (housefly, termite) as well as the positive ones (pollinators such as the bee, textile manufacturers such as the silkworm, food uses known as entomophagy, and once again respectable maggot therapy). BrainyBabe (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]