Language desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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.

March 24

extrémité/French skeletal anatomy

I am having some trouble with the sentence "des calcifications engainantes localisées, principalement rencontrées au niveau de la voûte crânienne et de l'extrémité distale du membre supérieur et inférieur gauche." I don't really speak French, so I've been using Google translate and relying on most of the science words being really similar. It is describing pathologies on a skeleton, and I get most of it, but I'm having trouble with the end. It's coming out as something like "and the distal end of upper and lower left," but that isn't a particularly helpful statement - does it mean the arms and legs, or the upper and lower halves of the arms?

Also, I'm having trouble with "extrémité" in general. Does it have a specific scientific use? How can I tell if a particular case means the ends of the arm bones, or the hand, or the fingers?

Thanks in advance. 174.30.208.36 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I'm surprised it didn't translate membre, which, in most cases I've seen it, equates to English limb (it might also mean member as a certain other part of the body), which would mean the arms and legs. (2) I've also seen extrémités, plural, taken to mean limbs (although sometimes also the hands and feet). In the singular, it might just be end, as you suggested. -- the Great Gavini 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) So its referring to the upper and lower left limb? I don't think it's plural, so what is it referring to - arm, leg, or both? (2) Thank you! So it's just a general sense, like in English I might say that there's evidence of infection in the bones of the arms? 174.30.208.36 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Calcifications are localized [...] at the distal end of the upper left limb and of the lower left limb. My understanding (in French too): localized at the left arm, at the left leg or both.— AldoSyrt (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "distal" refers to the furthest of these extremities, i.e. fingers and toes on a human, although the original passage in French would seem to refer to an animal, so whatever the equivalent is in that species. --Xuxl (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original sentence is from this paper: Maladies dans l'Antiquité et au Moyen-Âge. Paléopathologie comparée des anciens Gallo-Romains et Hongrois It refers to a human fetus. According to the figure 30 of the paper, the effects of the congenital syphilis are not limited to the toes and to the fingers.— AldoSyrt (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the images from that, but thank you for another source! I'm actually looking at a different document, but it may just be a reprint or something. I'm still having some trouble with this, so I'm going to ask really specifically. I know that in this context "distal" should be referring to the end of specific bones, rather than limbs in general. Does it mean that the calcifications are at the distal ends of the left humerus, tibia, and fibula? 174.30.250.190 (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pictures are not shown, fortunately you can look at figure 30 on page 67 of the pdf file. The pathological areas are shown in black, normal are hatched and missing bones are in white. (A picture is worth a thousand words - attributed to Napoleon) — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I missed that one. Thank you! 174.30.250.190 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.T., but the RD pages aren't updating for me when logged out - does anyone know why that might be? -- the Great Gavini 05:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That happens when they get overloaded. It should resolve itself. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The right way to represent an object or a thing

The student was found in the room with TV on top of him OR The student was found in the room with TV at top of him. Which of the above two sentences is correct ? This is precisely asked with respect to the use of "on" and "at" aniketnik 08:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniketnik (talk • contribs)

I'd choose "on". I'd also use an article before "TV" - whether definite ("the") or indefinite ("a") will depend on the context the sentence appears in. If it's an isolated sentence, it doesn't matter which one - but you must have one for the sentence to sound idiomatic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: "on top of" is the only idiomatic way to say this. I suppose there's also "atop" (as in "with the TV atop him") but that sounds rather strange and old-fashioned. (Perhaps "at top" comes from a mis-hearing of "atop".) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O'bama instead of Obama

When Americans say O'bama, with what are they trying to associate the president? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other way of saying "Obama"? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some call him Osama supposedly by mistake. Quest09 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The O' prefix is typical of Irish surnames. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick's Day? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I forgot that Obama has Irish ancestry. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian language question

The second verse of the song "Moscow Nights" contains the phrases: "Речка движется и не движется" and "Песня слышится и не слышится". Literal translations could be "the river is moving and is not moving" / "a song is heard and is not heard". Somewhere way back I recall that this kind of form (postive + negative) is used in Russian to convey ambiguity, and can be translated as "the rivers seems to be moving" / "a song seems to be heard". My questions are: Is this a correct interpretation of this construction? Is there a linguistic term for this? Do other languages use this too? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to come down to the simile/metaphor difference. That is, do you say "that man is like iron" or "is iron" ? I would tend to go with the literal translation here, rather than risk introducing a subtle change in meaning. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literal translations are rife with issues, particularly when it comes to poems. Plus, Russian is especially rich in idiomatic expressions that simply do not mean what they seem to literally mean. My sense is of a river that seems to be hardly moving, maybe because it's being viewed from a distance in the moonlight (see this translation); and a snatch of a song that is faintly heard from afar, so faintly that the listener is not sure he's heard anything at all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but isn't it better to do the literal translation, then let the reader decide what it really means, than have the translator add in his opinion of what it means ? StuRat (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not as a general approach. How do we know the readers could make any sense out of individual words all literally translated, unless they had some good knowledge of the source language and its idioms? Because, if they had that knowledge, they wouldn't generally be needing a translation into another language to begin with. "From the horse's mouth" is not generally translated into other languages by use of their words for "horse" and "mouth", because they don't share this idiom with English, and readers would be scratching their heads until Doomsday wondering what the reference to horses and their mouths was all about. Generally speaking, translations are for people who know the target language but not the source language. It's the translator's job to render the meaning as closely as possible, and it's a very tricky business. A translator is not just a machine that converts words, computer-like, from one language to another. They bring their own history and world-view and communication skills into the equation, and yes, their opinions. Which is why you can pick up 6 different translations of War and Peace and find that, while some passages are translated identically, many others differ in some material particulars. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a case where there's really only one possible translation, like "put your nose to the grindstone", then that's fine. But the cases given here seem to have multiple translations possible, so picking one at random does a disservice to the author. If he had intended for it to be unambiguous, he would have written it that way. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "at random". Where do you get such ideas from, Stu? It's (assumed to be) the translator's conscientious belief as to what the writer intended, based on their own knowledge of Russian and its peculiar idioms, what they can discover about the writer and his style and his personal history particularly around the time the passage in question was written, etc. "If he had intended for it to be unambiguous, he would have written it that way" - how do you know he did in fact intend it to be ambiguous? Is your knowledge of Russian such that this conclusion is inescapable? I studied Russian for three years at university, married into a Russian-speaking family, and have been using the language on-and-off for over 35 years, but I certainly can't answer this question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that either "Речка движется и не движется" or "Песня слышится и не слышится" has a single unambiguous interpretation. If you find a reliable source that says they do, then those would be good translations. Otherwise, they should be translated literally. StuRat (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't about what non-russophones can or can't believe, Stu, because their beliefs are ipso facto pretty irrelevant. No offence. But I'm done with talking about this; it's not getting the OP any closer to an answer. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, if you can find any language where the "A is B, A is not B" usage has one specific meaning, I'd be very surprised. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you! I am not seeking to write or publish or sing a translation, I want to know what it means to a native Russian speaker (which doesn't mean the answer needs to be provided by a native speaker). In English, this construction is quite unusual, no? - it sounds more like a Western translation of Zen poetry or something like that, to me anyway. What does the original mean to Russian ears? Is it as unusual, or is it actually a commonly used phrasing?

Jack, you may be on to something there, I had thought about coming back and adding that another translation might be "barely moving" and "barely heard", or hardly and faintly, as you put it. And thank you for that translation link. I still remain curious about this lyrical Russian construction in general, or is it more or less unique to this song? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it means different things to different Russian speakers. Like many forms of art, poetry is often left to be interpreted by the viewer. In such a case, I believe that the artist's intent (that it should be left undefined), should be preserved. This type of oxymoron isn't unheard of English either, such as "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times". Imagine if that was hacked into "It was the best of times in some ways, such as .... while the worst of times in other ways, such as ...". StuRat (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible meaning of "the river is moving and not moving" is that, while the water within the river moves, the river itself does not (well, it does, but only over the course of many years). StuRat (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible meaning of "the song is heard and not heard" is that the words were heard, but the meaning was not truly understood. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibly irrelevant comparisons: -- the river thing could be inspired by Heraclitus' most famous saying; and I don't know of any general linguistic construction "A is X and not-X", but some languages use a construction "A is X and B is not-X" as their version of the comparative (i.e. "John is strong and Mike is weak" would be those languages' way of saying "John is stronger than Mike")... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This literary device appears in the Bible.

At least one "Dick and Jane" book teaches "relativity". "Dick is big. Sally is little." "Sally is big. Tim is little." [1]

—Wavelength (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am correcting my punctuation. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)][reply]

I'm not a native Russian speaker either, but my experience with the language is decent. I don't think that the specific pattern (It's moving, and it isn't moving) is a fixed pattern that forms part of standard language use (i.e. it's not a common prosaic way of expressing "barely" or "seemingly"). It's not a particularly common or conventionalised literary device either. Overall, I'd say that it's just a relatively individual poetic choice of words that occurs in this particular song and that we pretty much owe to this particular author (Mikhail Matusovsky). In English, I can imagine something like "The river is moving - or is it?" or "The river is moving - and yet it isn't." I'd say that English constructions such as "yes and no" and "X is Y-ing - or is it?" are actually more commonplace and conventionalised than the Russian phrase under discussion. Of course, you can say things like "мне этого хочется - и не хочется" ("I want this - yet I don't"), or "я тебя понимаю - и не понимаю" ("I understand you, and yet I don't"), but it's not specific to the language, these are instead highly individual expressions that you would normally follow up by an clarification. That's what I think, at least; native speakers' input would be more relevant, of course.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! And thank you everyone for your replies, efforts, and interesting tidbits. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a request for comment from a native speaker at WT:RUSSIA and thought I'd chip in. Folks above do have a point about the lyrics meaning different things to different people—there certainly isn't anything in the song to make one absolutely sure what the ambiguity here means. My personal opinion (and it is by no means the "correct" one; just one I personally feel to be most likely) is that the lyrics are trying to convey the singer's perception that while everything around is in motion, the evenings are so peaceful and quiet that it feels as if everything is standing still. That is, the river is of course flowing, but it feels and looks as if it isn't. Same goes for the song, which is being sung, but it doesn't feel as if it is. For what it's worth,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 28, 2011; 13:46 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful answer, Ezhiki! ---Sluzzelin talk 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing meaning of happiness

I've heard it said on tv or radio, more than once, that the meaning or definition of happiness was different in the past.

Is this true? What was its meaning in the past? Evidence-based answers are particularly welcome. Thanks 92.24.188.210 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be slightly off-topic, but the Inn of the Sixth Happiness seems to use a different meaning, where they are items that can be counted. This is likely a (mis)translation from Chinese, though. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean. That article says nothing about the 1 to 6 or more happinesses. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article doesn't name them, but I found a site that does (which Wikipedia seems to block due to SPAM ads). Here's the list of the first 6 Confucian happinesses:

1. Good health

2. Good wealth

3. Long life

4. Good career

5. Plenty offspring

6. Good food

As you can see, the "6th happiness" is good food, making it "The Inn of Good Food". StuRat (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I dimly remember it, the movie The Inn of the Sixth Happiness coyly doesn't say what the sixth is, but as the protagonist is a missionary I supposed that it's meant to be Salvation. —Tamfang (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the commentary that you heard had to do with the phrase the pursuit of happiness, there is an argument that, by happiness, Thomas Jefferson meant the classical Greek concept of eudaimonia. See this article. Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My quick reading of that and the eudaimonia article suggests that the older meaning is that of doing your best, including being ethical, and provided you have done your best then you should be able to take misfortune(s) without being overcome by it. It reminds me of the poem Invictus. The modern meaning is more like continuous pleasure. Since people sometimes do things that will bring them unhappiness, such as taking part in wars or civil protests, then eudaimonia may be a higher goal than mere happiness. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the full version of the Oxfiord English Dictionary gives any indication that the meaning has changed over the centuries. I do not have any access to it right now. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy used to mean lucky, and is related to "perhaps" and "happen". Here's the etymonline search to back that up: [2] 213.122.33.172 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this usage is related to happenstance. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]