Language desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 14

Praise of self-subsisting

What would the expression "the praise of self-subsisting" mean?--LordGorval (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give the context? For example, it could mean that self-subsisting is itself a type of praise, or it could mean that something or someone elsewhere in the sentence is praising self-subsisting. Or is it that you want to know the meaning of self-subsistence? Again, the exact meaning will depend on the context. For example, it is often used to mean Self-sufficiency. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 13:29, 14 M--LordGorval (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)ay 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Saint Matthew it says "It was first published in Judea in Hebrew for Hebrew Christians." Looking up "Judea" under List of Biblical names it has the meaning of " the praise of Jehovah" and "Jehovah" has a meaning of "self-subsisting". I just put the two together to get "the praise of self-subsisting" assuming it has another meaning other than the territory.--LordGorval (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word Judea in that sentence just means the territory. In the context of the list, it just means "the praise of Jehovah", as in "the praise of God". I don't see any reference in the list to support the claim that the name Jehovah (or however the tetragrammaton should be represented) means 'self-subsisting', nor is it mentioned in either of the articles I've linked. In fact, our article on Judea says it means "praised, celebrated": I wouldn't trust anything on that poorly sourced list. It says that "most" of the names are sourced from a 19th century book, but doesn't mark which ones, meaning we can't tell which names are completely unsourced. On top of that, it says that a possible meaning has been given, even when "[m]eanings of the names are not (...) definite or clear". Again, these dubious meanings are not marked in any way.

Even if Jehovah is derived from words meaning self-subsisting, that would just mean that God had been given a name that meant he was self-subsisting: that is, he exists entirely independently of everything else. Like when he tells Moses I AM THAT I AM. That's doesn't mean you should substitute the derivation of the name.

To make this clearer:

The name Lucy means light, but you can't subsitute that meaning into the sentence "Lucy entered the room with a bag over her shoulder.". Changing that to "Light entered the room with a bag over her shoulder." doesn't make sense.

In the same way, you can't just substitute the proposed 'meaning' of the name Jehovah where it is used in phrases and sentences: it won't make any sense. 86.177.125.182 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the form "Jehovah"[sic] never existed in Hebrew, and has absolutely no meaning whatsoever in Hebrew. However, the Tetragrammaton YHWH (of which "Jehovah"[sic] is an incorrect derivation) clearly has some connection with the Hebrew consonantal verb root H-W-Y and/or H-Y-Y, which has a basic meaning of "to be" (sometimes "to become"). This has led to speculation that YHWH might possibly have meant something like "He who causes to be", but that's merely speculation. The Bible itself seems to connect the tetragrammaton with the phrase "I am who I am" (Hebrew Ehyeh asher ehyeh) in the famous passage Exodus 4:14. It would really be best to avoid assuming that any English phrase is an exact "translation" of the tetragrammaton. As for the name Judah (Hebrew Yehudah), it's quite unlikely that this contains any form of YHWH at all... AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am what I am, I am my own special creation... DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. DuncanHill. Very good explanation.--LordGorval (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Allah"

Allah is, as I have understood it, the arabic name of the almighty God in islam, christianity and judaism. But is the word Allah also used for the word "god" in general? take for example this sentence: "Odin is considered the chief god in Norse mythology". Would this sentence, if translated into arabic, use the word allah for "god"? /Marxmax (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the link to be certain, but as I recall, the name "Allah" essentially means "the only God". So if they even gave any thought to Norse mythology, they would likely come up with a different word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article called God is also interesting, and leads to other articles on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article Allah says: The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ʼilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God". 86.180.48.37 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Wiktionary entry god, in which the lower-case is crucial, gives the Arabic translation as إله ilah, which I assume is a different word from the same root as Allah. ar:إله links to our article deity, also. +An gr 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered if the ilah part was etymologically connected with the Hebrew elohim, and apparently it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic wikipedia describes Odin as "أودين كبير الآلهة في الميثولوجيا النوردية", "Odin is the greatest of gods in Nordic mythology". آلهة is the determined plural of إله. Thor is labelled as إله as well. Do note that Arabic Christians refer to God as Allah, see pic on the right. --Soman (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who can't read Arabic, what word are they using for "gods"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ilaha", plural of "ilah", as Soman said (well, with the Arabic). Incidentally, since it hasn't been mentioned, this is also the word for "god" in the shahada, which has both the general "god" and the specific "God" ("la ilaha illa Allah"). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in some sense it's understood (as with English) that you have "gods" and you have "THE God". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, grammatically at least. Theologically there is only one God, although other religions are understood to have more than one (including Christianity sometimes). I guess the shahada really refers to the numerous pre-Islamic gods, especially the ones worshipped in Mecca. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the plural of إله ʾilāh reads as آلهة ʾāliha. The Shahāda has the inflected form ʾilāha, which is a singular accusative (-a being the case ending). --BishkekRocks (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, that's right, oops. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word for "Small Talk"

There is a single word in the English language that describes talk that doesn't convey much information, but, rather, merely has the purpose of being social, or polite. E.g. a quick conversation about the weather. I can't remember the term, and it's driving me nuts. Thanks.

Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "pleasantries"? Less likely: "filler"? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at synonyms for small talk, which to me fits the description if not the one-word limit. Suggestions: banter, blather, chatter, chitchat, gab. I don't recall ever hearing someone say "persiflage" with a straight face. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—but these aren't it! I remember it was one of those words that was difficult to say with a straight face—and I think it did begin with a "p"—but it wasn't "persiflage." Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prate?, prattle?, palaver? --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it! It came to me spontaneously in the car. Phatic. Thanks for the help though! Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that phatic is an adjective, whereas small talk, chit-chat, persiflage etc are all nouns. One might deduce that phat is the noun synonymous with "small talk", but it is not. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wie Hunde bellen" - German Help?

I'm struggling to understand the last part of this passage here, in particular the last line "Die wie Hunde bellen". To me this means "they bark like the dogs" - is it some kind of idiom?

"Um die Kassen wieder zu füllen, greifen sie auch zu ungewöhnlichen Maßnahmen: von der "Sex-Steuer" bis hin zu städtischen Mitarbeitern, die wie Hunde bellen. " Source: Deutsche Welle

I've understood "städtischen Mitarbeitern" to mean civil employee, or civil servant. Can anyone explain that last bit to me in a different way? Thank you very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.10.52 (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an idiom. Officials in Köln have begun to go around and collect registering fees from people who have not registered their dogs. If they suspect you have an unregistered dog they will ring your doorbell several times. If the dog does not respond the official will literally begin to bark like a dog. In post cases the dog will respond, therefore forcing the owner to pay up. Xenon54 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wow! I hadn't thought it would have a literal meaning, thanks for explaining it to me. The passage is a bit clearer now :) --88.111.10.52 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one small note on grammar: In your example, the word "die" is a relative pronoun. "... die wie Hunde bellen" means "who bark like dogs". If you wanted to say "they bark like dogs", using "die" for "they", the correct word order would be "die bellen wie Hunde". ---Sluzzelin talk 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I've noticed that relative clauses often use the main-clause word order in German. One example I remember is anti-fur billboards from several years ago that said Es gibt Ziegen, die sind tatsächlich blöd ("There are goats that really are stupid", referring to women who wear fur). If I had written that in my university German class, I would have been marked down and the sentence corrected to Es gibt Ziegen, die tatsächlich blöd sind. But real live native speakers get to do whatever they want, including using this "incorrect" word order. +An gr 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<squeeze>That particular word order has to do with emphasis. There are goats that are really stupid., pointing out the "in reality" part, as opposed to the figuratively "stupid goat", a common insult similar to "bitch", though less offensive. -- 78.43.60.58 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)</squeeze>[reply]

Lol, leave it to you to catch these little annoyances, Angr. For some weird reason, I have no problem with the Ziegen example, but "bis hin zu städtischen Mitarbeitern, die bellen wie Hunde" just sounds wrong as a relative clause. Maybe it has something to do with the "es gibt". Will think about this some more when I am not editing under the influence. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are definitely times when non-native learners know more (at least at the conscious level) than native speakers. And I agree with you about the städtische Mitarbeiter sentence; my non-native intuition also says the main-clause order wouldn't work there, but I'm not sure why. Maybe because the Ziegen sentence is in a more informal register than the städtische Mitarbeiter sentence? Or maybe it's something syntactic/pragmatic. I dunno. +An gr 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I think these are two distinct phenomena, in fact. Real main clause order in relatives, acccording to my intuition, is very common for presentational contexts (things like "there are X that...", "I have an X that...", "I once knew an X that..." – about the same types of contexts where some English varieties would be most likely to allow zero relatives.) The "bellen wie Hunde" example would still work for me, but for a different reason: I can parse it as regular verb-final relative clause order combined with extraposition of the PP to the right. But I wouldn't expect that in the formal written register. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a side note, hounds can bell in English. Is this cognate with the German bellen? DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They can? My dictionary indicates that only stags or bucks can bell (i.e. make a particular cry at rutting time), and indicates that that verb is related to bellow. My German etymological dictionary says that bellen and bell (in the animal sense) are indeed related. +Angr 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed they do - see [1] for a few examples. In a minute I'll get off my arse and look it up in my own distionaries! DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OED has it has to roar or bellow, and if you've ever heard the hounds in full voice "bellowing" meets the sense. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belling is the only 'barking' that beagles can do. It is halfway between a bark and a howl, a sort of extended bark without, as it were, closing the mouth. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the right situation to use these

What are the differences between: border conflict, border skirmish, and border clash. Qajar (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it's a matter of nuance (meaning, others will have other opinions). I would say a skirmish is brief and usually with few if any casualties. A single day, perhaps, or a few consecutive days. A clash to me implies larger numbers of troops and possibly heavier weapons--so, more intensity, and possibly over a longer period of time (weeks instead of days). A conflict to me implies hostilities that endure over a longer months instead of weeks). There may be periods of calm, but the tension doesn't drop that much. Take the relationship between India and Pakistan as an example. We have Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, which in turn refers to the Siachen Conflict. The latter article says the conflict began in 1984, with a ceasefire in 2003.

In ordinary usage, when speaking of military engagements, skirmish and clash are close to one another; conflict implies something larger than the other terms.

--- OtherDave (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with OtherDave, though I might also use "border conflict" in the sense of a non-militaristic border dispute. That is, the "conflict" may be taking place between politicians rather than soldiers. I wouldn't use "skirmish" or "clash" in that sense. Matt Deres (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

translate

whats going on in this vid http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1273711451/Indian_Cop_Punches_The_Spit_Out_Of_Woman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Portuguese, but I do speak enough Spanish to understand some of it. It's something like "A 26-year-old woman who belongs to a lower caste of Indian society was accused of killing her husband. During her interrogation...official... beats the woman...again. The policeman was suspended." 82.124.231.13 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]