Language desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

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.

December 6

The water is fine

What exactly is meant by "the water is fine" in http://www.economist.com/node/21540395 (at the very bottom of the article)? I think litterally it's something like "the water is not too cold", but i guess that it's also used as a general expression like "you will like this party, you might think there are just nasty people but you'll see they are really nice"? Google just comes up with many lyrics. TIA! Joepnl (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, "Come on in, the water's fine" would be used to encourage bathers into the sea (or a pool) -- usually understood to mean, as you say, that the water is at a comfortable temperature. Figuratively, the expression could be used to reassure someone that an activity is safe, enjoyable, profitable, etc., and to encourage them to participate. In your example it is used in a slightly punning way. On the one hand the usage is figurative because it is talking about entrepreneurs embarking on the construction of floating cities, rather than anyone actually going bathing. On the other hand there is an obvious connection between the literal meaning and the subject being discussed. 86.148.152.251 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point to bring up. If something sounds cliched and trite, it's probably also corporate speak.--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 86.148.152.251, not what WaltCip is getting at. Joepnl (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Latin caption

Hi, would someone like to try their hand at translating the Latin caption of the image on the right into English? I'm afraid the smaller print may be a bit hard to make out. The woman depicted is Kösem Sultan. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vera effigies Turcorum Imperatoris Ibrahim filli, sultanae eiusdem matris, sub pugna navali ab equitibus Melitensibus captorum, inq. insulam Melitensem abductorum. I'd read it as: "True images of the son of the Turkish imperator Ibrahim and of the mother of the same sultan, who was captured by the Maltese cavalry during a naval battle, and abducted to the island of Malta." (How did the Maltese cavalry get into a naval battle? Don't ask me. All I know is that that "navali" is "naval" and "equitibus" is "cavalry".) I don't know what "inq." stands for, but that does not seem to be very important to understand the passage. --Itinerant1 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be inque, "and in". Ab equitibus Melitensibus "by the Knights of Malta" --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is Filii "son" or "sons"? Also, was it the Sultana or her grandson who was abducted to Malta? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vera effigies is singular ("authentic image"), and the transcription above, although not the translation, omitted the "et" before sultanae. (Et sultanae eiusdem matris doesnt't mean "and of the mother of the same sultan", I think, but rather "and of his [i.e., Ibrahim's] mother the sultana".) To answer the questions immediately above, filii is singular "of the son"; and captorum and abductorum are plural, so the meaning is that both were captured and taken to Malta. Deor (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, "An authentic image of the son of the Turkish Emperor Ibrahim, and of the Sultana his [i.e., Ibrahim's] mother, who were captured by the Maltese cavalry during a naval battle, and abducted to the island of Malta"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense from the historical perspective. Kösem Sultan was captured at the age of 15, in 1604 or 1605. Ibrahim I, the son of Kösem Sultan and Ahmed I was only born in 1615. The child depicted in this picture is Ibrahim's son, who was born no earlier than 1640. I'll defer to Deor's authority with regard to other aspects.--Itinerant1 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably refers to the Action of 28 September 1644. Mikenorton (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the woman in the engraving would not be Kösem Sultan, but the wife of Ibrahim who was captured with the boy (according to the cited article). Eiusdem matris would then denote the mother of the "filius" rather than the mother of Ibrahim. Deor (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Theatrum Europaeum, where the two different pictures of mother Zaffira and son Osman are shown as an illustration of the news text (in German). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there were serious doubts about whether the boy really was the son of Ibrahim, John Evelyn 'exposed' him as an imposter in 1669 in his The History of the three late famous Imposters, viz. Padre Ottomano, Mahomed Bei, and Sabatei Sevi . Mikenorton (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so, summing it all up, the correct translation would appear to be "Authentic depiction of the son of Emperor Ibrahim and of the sultana his mother, [who were] captured in a naval battle by the Knights of Malta and carried off to the island of Malta". Perhaps the image should be moved to the article Action of 28 September 1644, as it's misleading in its current use. Deor (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something fundamental here: Where is the filius in this picture? The small bloke on the left looks more like a servant/slave. Also, the lady looks pregnant to me, but maybe I'm just imagining that. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the son is pictured in the other image linked to by Pp.Paul above - 'Osman', I'm further presuming that the images appear as a pair, although why one caption is in Latin and the other in German..... Mikenorton (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur. As far as I can tell, the Latin and German captions say the same thing. Unfortunately, our article on Ibrahim I says nothing about this particular wife of his (how do we know her name is Zaffira?), or a son named Osman. Thank you all – this has been most enlightening. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that the German text is the literal translation of the Latin. "Wahre Contrafactur des Türckischen Kaysers Ibrahims Sohn und der Sultanin seiner Mutter, welche in dem Seetreffen von denen Malteser Rittern gefangen und nach Malta gebracht worden." This also makes unambiguously clear that the person depicted is not Ibrahim but Ibrahim's son, and that the mother is not Ibrahim's mother but that son's mother. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's named 6 lines from the bottom of the first column of p. 645 in the work cited by Pp.Paul.4. Deor (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted it above from the German news in Theatrum Europaeum, which is several pages long and has more images of Sultan Ibrahim I and of the battles of the Turkish-Venetian War. The English version of the name would be perhaps Sapphira, she was baptized, I do not know whether in fact or fiction, Giacometta Beccarino see, for example, her fate here. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That story sounds implausible to me. If she was sold into slavery in 1620, there's no way she'd end up a wife of Ibrahim I, who was five years old at the time. Presumably, his wives had to be virgins when he took them (and he liked them young, too - his first three wives gave him children when they were 14 to 15.)

I'm looking through some free history books on Google Books. Zaffira is not mentioned in most sources, possibly because Ibrahim had lots of wives and children, and only the first few are usually listed. History books say that Ibrahim still had no children in early 1642 (some people were already planning for the seemingly inevitable fall of the Ottoman empire in the event that Ibrahim, the last male heir in the House of Osman, died childless), but then he quickly started reproducing and he had seven sons by 1644. And, since Osman was not one of the first children, he had to be an infant when he was taken. Nevertheless, Ibrahim was sufficiently mad at the loss of one of his wives that he declared war on Venice.

There is also this account, which states that she was _really_ the wife of Ibrahim's chief eunuch and the nurse of Mehmed IV, and the boy was not Ibrahim's son at all - his father was unknown.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and this account, which seems to be a retelling of aforementioned John Evelyn's book, repeats the "eunuch's wife" story, names the woman Sciabas, says that she was Russian (although Sciabas is not a Russian name in any way - it sounds Italian to me), and that she was killed during the battle.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone would like to update "Action of 28 September 1644" with all this fascinating information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone did! --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just noticed! I've added the image of Osman to the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's more useless trivia. It looks like most 18th and 19th century English books say that she was a eunuch's wife and it was all a hoax. French/German/Italian books stick to the original story. They also say that she was the first wife and he was the oldest son, 2 months older than Mehmed IV. (For that to be true, it would mean some serious coverup at the highest levels in Istanbul.) Paul Rycaut, who was a British consul in Turkey for 11 years, supposedly gave a good contemporary overview of the facts in the third volume of his General Historie of the Turks, but that book is not available online.--Itinerant1 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the beauty of Wikipedia and crowdsourcing in action: we started off with a simple request about the meaning of an image caption in Latin, and have now resurrected a footnote from history (as well as the historical significance of "Upper Germany" and "Lower Germany"). Well done, guys. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Theatrum Europaeum provide any more information about this Zaffira? (I'm terrible with blackletter German.) And does it explain how those engravings were made 60 years after Zaffira's death? --Itinerant1 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of German book title

Ah, great. Now, for those with German skills: how should the title of the work from which the engraving was obtained be translated? It is Theatri Europaei Fünffter Theil / Das ist: Außführliche Beschreibung Aller Denckwürdigen Geschichten. Die sich in Europa, Als Hoch- und Nieder-Teutschland / Franckreich / Hispanien / Jtalien / Groß-Britannien / Dennemarck / Schweden / Polen / Moscaw / Böhmen / Hungarn / Siebenbürgen / Wallachey / Moldaw: Jn der Türckey und Barbarey ... vom Jahr 1643. biß ins 1647. Jahr / allerseits begeben und verlauffen. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatri Europaei Part V: A detailed description of all significant events which took place between 1643 and 1647 in Europe, ie Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Moscow, Bohemia, Hungary, Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldavia but also in Turkey and the barbaric countries. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Does Theatri Europaei translate as "European Theatre"? And what is "allerseits begeben und verlauffen"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatri Europaei Fünffter Theil literally is "fifth part of the European Theatre". The convention is to recast such genitive titles in the nominative but leave them in Latin, so "Theatrum Europaeum, Part 5" is what you want. Allerseits begeben und verlauffen is what Incognito rendered as "took place"—literally something like "...occurred and came to pass everywhere [in Europe...]. Deor (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Just a few small corrections: "Barbarey" would be Barbary Coast, not "barbarian countries". There's also no "but also" in the original. "Moscaw", as a country, would probably be translated as "Muscovy". I don't think "Hoch- und Nieder-Teutschland" can be translated as "Austria and Germany"; I'd go for "Upper and Lower Germany" (or even: "Germany and the Low Countries"? Not quite sure. But "Austria" certainly wouldn't have been singled out conceptually like this.) You could also turn the main title into English: "Theatre of Europe, Part 5". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"begeben und verlauffen" is a hendiadyoin for "happened" (things that "occurred and transpired" or something like that). "Allerseits" would be "anywhere". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about mistranslating "Barbarey". "Hoch-Teutschland" is an obsolete / archaic term for the alpine regions of Germanic countries. When the Austro-Hungarian empire became defunct in 1918, the name was even considered as an option for the "new" political entity Austria. I took "Hoch-Teutschland" to mean Bavaria+, Austria and Switzerland. Vice versa, I assumed "Nieder-Teutschland" to refer to Brandenburg-Prussia, Saxony+ and the Netherlands (which I forgot to list). There is an article on Theatrum_Europaeum. The English article is a two line stub, but the de:WP stuff is longer. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I posted a query on the German ref desk on "Hoch- und Nieder-Teutschland" and will provide any feedback. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up in Grimm. It seems to have been used already mostly in the "Southern Germany" vs. "Northern Germany" sense that's also found in the modern linguistic concept of "High" vs. "Low German". "Hochdeutschland" would have stretched a good deal further north than just the "alpine region", but apart from that your list in your last posting has it essentially right. "Upper" vs. "Lower Germany" is probably the best translation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Fut.Perf. says: The areas separated by the Weißwurstäquator / the Speyer line isogloss. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. North and south of the Benrath line (or the Uerdingen line) that separates Low and High German. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank very much – and now I also know what a hendiadys/hendiadyoin is. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engraving of Maltese–Ottoman Empire naval battle

I have uploaded an engraving of a naval battle between Malta and the Ottoman Empire from Theatrum Europaeum (and have asked the Graphic Lab at the Commons to prepare a cropped version without the crease, if possible). I thought it might be nice to use it to illustrate the Action of 28 September 1644, but now am wondering whether it depicts the same battle as I note the caption states that the battle took place in 1645. Also, what is the word in the German version of the caption before dein that has disappeared into the crease? Does Treffen translate as "engagement, meeting"? In Mittellandischen there is a small e above the letter a – should the word be transcribed Mittelländischen? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it says "Türken in dem mittelländischen meer" or "Turks in the Mediterranean Sea". Mikenorton (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Pugna Nautica inter Melitenses, et Turcos, in Mari Mediterraneo / Treffen zwischen den Maltesern und Türcken in dem Mittelländischen Meer, Aº 1645". Yes, "Treffen" is "engagement" (in the sense of "battle"). Yes, the small superscript "e" can be normalized to modern a-umlaut. About whether it depicts the same battle, I wouldn't worry about the divergence in the date; the ships shown, with their names, very closely match the events of the battle as described in our Action of 28 September 1644, so it's certainly intended to be the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The action of 28 September provoked the Cretan War, which this engraving could depict. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but look at the details. According to our article on the 1644 battle, "The Maltese San Lorenzo, Santa Maria and Vittoria overhauled and attacked a Turkish galleon, while San Giuseppe and San Giovanni captured a smaller sailing ship and the "capitana" chased a vessel which turned out to be Greek, before returning to fight the galleon." The picture shows exactly these actions: on the right, three galleys labelled "S. Laurentz", "S. Maria" and "Victoria" surrounding a ship labelled "Türckische Galleon"; in the middle, two others labelled "S. Iohann" and "S. Ioseph" engaging another Turkish sailing vessel; and on the left, another galley labelled "Capitaine de Malte" engaging a vessel labelled "Griechisches Schiff". There's also "Rhodes" in the background, and a convoy of other Turkish ships in the background on the far right; all of this also matches the description. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is only for the crease, take the image from the 2nd edition of 1651 (select the reference year 1645, then Tafel 34 before p. 808 (cannot link to the page itself) [1] or the image from a vendor [2]. The vendor refers also to the 1644 or 1645 question. The image is falsely labeled 1645, the story itself is entangled and told amongst the 1645 events. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Neither image is very clear, but I've brought them to the attention of the good people at the Graphic Lab in case they are helpful. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't a simple mistake, as Pp.paul points out, is it possible that different parts of Europe were just using different dates for the beginning of the New Year? Some used January, some March, some September, so 1645 for one country could have still been 1644 elsewhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was something I was thinking about too, but I couldn't quickly find information about any places that started the year in September. January vs. March wouldn't make a difference in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantine calendar began in September, but not sure it would be relevant here... 07:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This couldn't have anything to do with the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, could it? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas

Here in Australia, an island continent, the word overseas is used effectively to mean (travel to) any foreign country. Its use leads to silly jokes about travel to Tasmania, an island state of Australia. But what does overseas mean elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cue the legendary anecdote about the politician Kep Enderby, who is reputed to have once pronounced during a parliamentary debate: Traditionally, most of Australia's imports come from overseas. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've also heard that (or something very similar) attributed to George Bush [3][4]. 86.177.107.177 (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard about Enderby's alleged remark when he was a minister in 1974-75, well before GWB was a well-known figure. It was widely reported at the time, and ever since then it's always been the thing he's best rememebered for, but we've had no luck tracking down a citation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a citation, attesting to its origin in 1974. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines is an archipelagic country. It has the same meaning here, strangely enough. When we say "overseas" we never mean merely hopping from one island to another, we mean going to another country.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The UK has pretty much exactly the same usage; and the same silly jokes, but usually referring to the Isle of Wight (often, the people making the jokes also refer, hilariously, to it as the 'Izzle of Widget'). I found this page which seems to confirm that people, or at least some landlords, get confused about where 'overseas' is:

Some confusion often reigns with the following localities, Isle of Wight and Northern Ireland. These landlords are NOT classed as overseas. Southern Ireland (Eire), the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are classed as overseas. Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US it's complicated. Canada and Mexico clearly aren't "overseas", and perhaps the same is true for most of Central America. For South America and the bit of Central America beyond the Darien Gap, however, land travel is pretty much out, which means traveling "over sea(s)" (although I suppose you could manage to fly over land the whole way). The state of Hawaii is not considered "overseas" even though, technically, it is. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Canada and Mexico are not literally separated by sea from the United States, but I actually think they are classed as "overseas" when the term is used in a legal sense. --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience in the U.S., "overseas" usually means travel to any foreign country other than Canada or Mexico. 205.156.136.229 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, is "most of our imports come from overseas" as nonsensical in the US as it obviously is in Australia? 86.177.107.177 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, as major amounts of imports come from both Canada and Mexico, neither of which is "overseas". I'm not sure whether together they constitute more than half, though. StuRat (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would something Canada imports from Hawaii be from overseas? HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, then, that the Bush quote seems to be widely ridiculed as if it was a really dumb thing to say. I remember wondering about this when I first heard it, which would have been years ago. 86.177.107.177 (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe he said from "foreign nations" ? That sounds more like him. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he did then he is widely misquoted. 86.167.19.229 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you go all the way to Tasmania to go overseas, when Rottnest Island is much closer! Mitch Ames (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where your departure point is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

and which way you are looking - mainlanders go to Tasmania for holidays, and also Rotto Satu Suro 13:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of tourists in Victoria go to Phillip Island to see the penguins, and you can get there via a bridge. (Over the sea, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

People who were travelling to foreign parts used to say they were going "abroad", but that seems to have fallen out of use. For an American, that could apply to Mexico and Canada as much as to Bulgaria. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"abroad" is still alive and well in the UK. 86.167.19.229 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; or for nearby foreign countries, many people say "Europe". Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, the usual term is 海外, which literally means 'overseas', so English is not alone in this. Of course, like Australia, Japan is an island country with no land borders shared with anyone. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

海外 is also commonly used to literally mean "overseas", i.e. "foreign", in Chinese. This does not make literal sense given that China is connected to a lot of the world by land. It may be related to the fact that, from pre-modern China, the way to reach "truly" foreign countries in Europe, North America, the Middle East, Africa, India and even much of South East Asia was by sea. Those countries which could conveniently be reached by land, such as Vietnam or Korea, were not regarded as truly "foreign", but rather as vassals submitting to the same central authority. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Choose" vs. "Jews"

In the film Ghostbusters, the Traveller, Gozer the Gozerian, who during the rectification of the Vuldronaii came as a large and moving TORG, and during the reconciliation of the Meketrex supplications, came as a giant SLORR, where many Zuuls and Shubs were roasted in the depths of the Slorr (I can tell you), says "Choose and perish!" According to this page, Bill Murray said model/actress Slavitza Jovan's pronunciation of the line sounded more like "Jews and berries". Now I'm not a native English speaker and therefore unaccustomed to English pronunciation. I can understand the "perish" vs. "berries" bit, but not the "choose" vs. "Jews" bit. Particularly, I don't understand the difference between "ch" and "j". Finns pronounce both as /ts/. In contrast to Russian, which I've been told, has seven different s sounds, Finnish has all of one: /s/. I don't understand IPA or elaborate instructions of how to hold my facial organs when uttering the sound. Can anyone give me a simple description of the difference? JIP | Talk 20:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "J" in "Jews" is voiced, the "ch" in "choose" is not. Both are affricates, not particularly close to "s". — Kpalion^(talk) 20:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in "perish", the effect could have come about because an English /p/ in that position is typically strongly aspirated [pʰ]. When a foreign speaker pronounces it as a non-aspirated but voiceless [p], as is common in many other languages, English speakers will often tend to hear it as a /b/. I have no idea why a Serbian speaker would have had difficulties reproducing the English distinction between "ch" ([tʃ]) and "j" ([dʒ]) though, because Serbian does have both these sounds too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Neither of the two official languages of Finland, Finnish and Swedish, features affricates in its consonant inventory. Some examples of affricates are the English "ch" and "j", the German "z", and the "z" in Italian zucchero. --Theurgist (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish also doesn't feature much in the way of constrastive voicing. Our article Finnish phonology says that /b d ɡ/ are distinct from /p t k/ only in non-native words and (in the case of /d/ vs. /t/ alone) under consonant gradation. But JIP, if you can distinguish bussi from pussi and gorilla from korilla in Finnish, then try applying the same distinction to the English "j" and "ch" sounds. Incidentally probably what the Serbian actress did that made her /tʃ/ and /p/ sound like /dʒ/ and /b/ to Bill Murray was fail to aspirate the sounds sufficiently since voiceless stops in Serbian (like most Slavic languages) are unaspirated. Unaspirated voiceless stops at the beginning of a word are often perceived by English speakers as being voiced. Angr (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? [5] Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers, this helps. Finns know the distinction between voiced and unvoiced consonants, even though native Finnish only has unvoiced consonants, but voiced consonants occur in loanwords often enough. Except for d as an inflected form of t, which many Finns outside the capital region still find hard to grasp, pronouncing it instead as l or r. I gather this is a distinction between /ts/ ("ch", unvoiced) and /dz/ ("j", voiced). Anything beyond the voiced/unvoiced distinction is lost on Finns. JIP | Talk 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically yeah though "ch" is more like "tš" than like "ts" and "j" more like "dž" than like "dz". If you want to make all the phonemic distinctions that English has you have to distinguish not only "choose" from "Jews" but also "eights", "aitch", "AIDS" and "age" from each other. Angr (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just posting something I wrote while other users posted their comments above. Since this is a public forum, I thought some examples could optimise clarity. To exemplify the "voiced" thing:

In English: the ch in "chew" is to the j in "Jew" like the s in "sewn" is to the z in "zone" and like the f in "file" is to the v in "vile".

To exemplify the "affricate" thing:

the sh in English "shoe" is to the ch in English "chew" like the ss in German "Kasse" is to the tz in German "Katze" and like the j in French "j'aime" is to the g in English "gem".

Noticing the difference between the s in English "sell" and the sh in English "shell", or between the z in German "Zinn" and the ch in English "chin", may also pose problems to Finnish speakers. --Theurgist (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thread reminds me of the little racist epigram by William Norman Ewer: "How odd of God/to choose the Jews". Angr (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the riposte: "But not as odd/As those who choose/A Jewish God/Yet despise the Jews" --TammyMoet (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or the riposte I've heard: "Not strange/Not odd/The Jews/Chose God". --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Burma-Shave". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I have little knowledge of the underlying local languages and their pronunciation, French often adds a T or D to harden the sound of J or CH in place names where English would use the simple J or CH. For example, Djibouti (which would probably have been spelt "Jibuti", "Jibouti" or "Jibooti" had it been ruled by the British), N'Djamena, the capital of Tchad (Chad), Tchétchénie for Chechnya and Tchéchoslovaquie (Czechoslovakia or Československo in Czech or Slovakian). In reverse, the CH in French colonial names like Ubangui-Chari (Ubangui-Shari, now the Central African Republic) has the sound of SH in English. ¶ A curious two or three way transliteration is that of Zhores Medvedev (the Soviet dissident scientist and historian, not the current Russian president) transliterating back into the English alphabet the Cyrillic Russian letters for the last name of the French socialist leader Jean Jaurès. See discussion below. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shakescene. I've been wondering for about 30 years what sort of Russian name "Zhores" is, and now that I know it isn't one, I can finally sleep. But how do you know about the Jaurès connection? - there's nothing about it in his Wikipedia article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I'm wrong. I got it from a comment by I.F. Stone in The New York Review of Books It seems to be from this article, I. F. Stone Reports: Betrayal by Psychiatry, but see this reply, acknowledged by Stone, from I. Michael Lerner: Zhores not Jaurès [My feelings on finding that the articles (and thus my misapprehension) are almost 40 years old are distinctly mixed. ;-) Seems like the day before yesterday, but... On the other hand it was seasoned veterans like myself and User:Baseball Bugs who had to acquaint raw, callow, shockingly undereducated youth like you (whom I now find to be my junior by no less than one entire year *) to such ancient, essential classics as Duke of Earl.] * Thus of course begging the question, "Why weren't you, who presume to instruct others on Wikipedia, reading NYRB in 1972?" ;-) Perhaps I can compensate with the pedantic trivium, which is in Wikipedia (and thus ipso facto and unchallengeably true), that Eugene Victor Debs was named by his Franco-American family after Eugène Sue and Victor Hugo. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say I wasn't reading the NYRB in 1972? I've actually forgotten more than I ever knew (a neat trick, if you can manage it). But no, I was more into Nation Review in those heady days, which, despite its sad demise, instilled in me a lifelong passion for the works of Michael Leunig. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

No, Shakescene, I think you're right. My belief — which I think I absorbed through osmosis by reading most all of the output of Zhores' twin brother Roy Medvedev during the 1980s, was that Zhores Medvedev was named after Jean Jaures, while Roy was named after Indian radical leader M.N. Roy by their Communist parents. In fact, I am so sure that I do believe I'd bet one American dollar on this factoid. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plush candles

As I said here, I don't know what a "plush candle" is. For once on these desks, the tangent didn't get followed and I'm still in the dark about these candles (pun intended). So, could someone explain what is meant by a plush candle? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 21:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it means a toy made out of plush (the material used for stuffed animals) in the shape of a candle and not a real candle actually intended to be burned. Here's an example of a plush candleholder (click the image to see it enlarged) and here's the plush Advent wreath with candles the OP over at the Humanities desk was talking about. Angr (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what makes this a "plush" candle? It's not stuffed. Dismas|^(talk) 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, "Plush" may be the name of a scent/perfume, rather than an adjective. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to the realization that they could be using plush as a synonym for luxurious. It's not a word that I'd choose when talking about a candle but I guess it's possible. I'd use plush for things like blankets or pillows but not a hard object like a candle, so it threw me off. Dismas|^(talk) 22:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have other odd ones. What makes this a "juiced candle"? Is it on steroids? Deor (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orangemike. In the case of the APOTHIA Los Angeles Plush candle Plush is probably just a brand name. In the thread on the humanities desk plush probably means a toy candle made of plush since the OP there is talking about something safe for small children. Angr (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the OP was just asking for a candle which is constructed like a stuffed animal. The term "plush" can refer to such toys. Strictly speaking, plush is a tall-piled fabric used to make stuffed toys, but I have also heard the term used to describe any stuffed toy, not just ones made with the tall-pile fabric. --Jayron32 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]