Language desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

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.

April 20

Crucible Curse

I have fixed (or "fixed") [1] the lead paragraph of Crucible Curse, after rearranging the sentence several times. In particular, I'm having problems how to formulate the second part:

The Crucible Curse is a phrase used in professional snooker, referring to the fact that no first-time world champion has ever successfully defended his title the following year, while the World Snooker Championships have been held in the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, since 1977.

The catch is, I would like to keep both the "since 1977", and the "since the championships have been held in the Crucible Theatre". However, two nearby "since"s bothered me, so I tried with "while". That doesn't go along well with "have been held" though... or does it? So, how would you formulate that sentence? Dividing it in two would also be an option, but I don't see a natural bisection point (the text before my "fix" didn't flow well either). Not a native speaker, btw. No such user (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Crucible Curse is a phrase used in professional snooker, referring to the fact that no first-time world champion has ever successfully defended his title the following year since the World Snooker Championships were first held at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, in 1977. Your formulation isn't entirely clear, but I gather from the article that the 'since 1977' refers to the first time the championship was held at the Crucible, rather than the last time that someone retained the title. Henry ^Flower 07:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about The Crucible Curse is a phrase used in professional snooker, referring to the fact that no first-time world champion has ever successfully defended his title since 1977. The World Snooker Championships were first held at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, in that year. The phrase "the following year" is redundant since you can't be said to have defended your title in subsequent years after you lose it. I feel the original sentence is convoluted and have suggested splitting into two, as above (but you might wish to alter it). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two pen'th - "The Crucible Curse is a phrase used in professional snooker, referring to the fact that no first-time world champion has ever successfully defended his title the following year, since the World Snooker Championships moved to the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield in 1977." - X201 (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should definitely drop the "the following year", although there is scope for confusion if folk don't know the World Snooker Champs happen once a year. And you could replace "defend" with "retained" to lose the "successfully" as follows: "The Crucible Curse, a phrase used in professional snooker, refers to the fact that no first-time world champion has ever retained his title since the event moved to the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, in 1977."81.132.110.200 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could cut it down even more: "The Crucible Curse refers to the fact that, since 1977, when the World Snooker Championships moved to the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, no first-time champion has ever retained his title." -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the event been held at the Crucible Theatre in any year since 1977? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was held at the Crucible in every year from 1977 and will be held there at least until 2015. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 19:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points for removing is a phrase; now can we also ~~lose~~ improve on refers to the fact that? —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "The Crucible Curse is the notional cause of a [phenomenon/pattern/anomaly]..." —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the wording "notional cause" at all. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 06:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hypothetical cause then? (I like that less than notional because it implies that the cause could be real.) —Tamfang (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I ended up with this; of course, changes are welcome. I think that "refers to the fact that", while clumsy, cannot be easily worked around. 81.132 has a point that "the following year" is sort of redundant, but it makes obvious that the championships are held every year. "Defended" is IMO more common and to the point than "retained". No such user (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French translation please

I believe this talks of fragments (Cloth of St. Gereon of Cologne) of a tapestry that went to 3 museums.

3 museums

What are those museums, that I believe are named here - perhaps we have Wikipedia articles on.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have an article about South Kensington Museum, but the other two are in Lyon and Nuremberg and it doesn't specify which museums. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thread "French translation" above implies that Doug is aware that the Lyon museum is the Musée des Tissus et des Arts Décoratifs, about which we appear to lack an article. (The book linked here does contain a bit of information relevant to that previous query, though—namely, that the fragments of the tapestry in St. Gereon's Basilica were sold off by a certain Canon Bock.) Deor (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP page Cloth_of_St_Gereon, the museums are those: Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon, Germanisches Nationalmuseum of Nuremburg, and Victoria and Albert Museum of South Kensington. But the reference to the "Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon" is wrong, as noted by Deor it is the Musée des Tissus et des Arts Décoratifs — French WP — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commune

I would suggest, but cannot prove that somewhere, perhaps in French, common and union were contracted. Communer differs from and means more than commoner by this union. A communer is inseparably joined to Christ and other believers, both living and dead. A commune shares more than property, its members join in a shared family relationship. Can anybody develop or prove this idea? Herb Swanson (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both common and commune stem originally from the Latin communis, without having the word union grafted on. See: [2], [3]. To the extent the words are related, it's that they both have a connotation that multiple things should in some sense be considered as one thing. Commune is simply a more emotionally charged word to describe that normative unity. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or not emotionally charged. In France, it just means township or municipality. See Communes of France. The coincidence between "Communion" and "union" is exactly the same coincidence between "notable" and "table". There's no etymological connection between the terms, just a coincidence in the way that one word contains the other. --Jayron32 17:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to EO,[4][5][6] the "uni" part in the middle is what the two words have in common (ahem) in that both words have to do with turning many into one, as with e pluribus unum. The specific religious usage of this term is connected with Augustine, as he apparently coined it. There are quite a few words connected with "common", a term which goes back to proto-indo-european in some form, and of course they all have their own specific meanings. For one thing, "com-MUNE" means to gather together and share ideas, whereas a "COM-mune" is like a close-knit village, a close-knit "community", as it were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What EO actually says is that the derivation of Latin communis from com- + uni is a false etymology attributed to St. Augustine. According to EO's own etymology of communis, the word is derived from ko-/com- and an Indo-European root moi/moin, meaning "exchange", so that communis means "shared in common". So there is no etymological connection between communio and unio. Marco polo (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems like ~~Octoberstine~~ Augustine should have called it by the Latin noun form "communio", although a word like that would probably get Anglicized or French-ized to "communion" anyway. But the point being that the suffix is "muni", not "uni"... as in the prefix of "municipal", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should have called what 'communio', rather than what? —Tamfang (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another French-related question

Hello all! I've studied French for a few years so I can usually pick up at least 75% of spoken French; i.e., I can get the meaning if not the exact words. However, I find that when (for example) Sarkozy talks, such as at [7], I can pick up significantly more, including the exact words. Why is this? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because he is reading from a teleprompter, which prompts him to enunciate more clearly than a casual speaker might? Marco polo (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple theories. The first is that as the President of France, it is in his best interest to be understood by all of the people of France, with many different accents. Therefore, he is conscientious to speak very clearly, much as I would be if I were speaking to a large group of people, rather than three or four buddies. The next is that he is speaking extremely slowly, at least compared to what I am used to with my French teachers and French friends (who are quite capable of speaking much faster than I can listen). Also, as Marco polo mentioned, he does a far better job annunciating than a lot of the French speakers I run into. Granted, in English I don't annunciate things well at all until I am talking to an audience or people can't understand me, so this is not a surprise to me either. I am not particularly good at French, and I don't have a lot of experience, but that is what I observe. Can anybody tell, does he use "Le français standard" or is it more of a regional accent? Falconus^{p t c} 06:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Sarkozy is specifically a slow speaker, and has a very good ennunciation ('articulation' as we say in French). (I don't find many other compliment that I can make about him). It probably does help to get elected, when everyone can get your point. And yes, it is standard French, he grew up and was educated in the Paris area. --Lgriot (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]