Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 8

Language desk
< May 7	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 9 >

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 8

Classical Chinese

How difficult is it for the average Chinese (not like a literature major or anything) to understand Classical Chinese, compared to how difficult it would be for us to understand Shakespeare or Chaucer? (ie., more, less, about the same?) For our purposes assume both the English speaker and Chinese speaker have about the same education level, both with only the experience in these fields that is required for everyone. (Notice that I am also asking how deeply these are taught in the respective culture) Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Classical Chinese itself makes the comparison between Classical Chinese and Modern Chinese languages to be more like the difference between Latin and Romance languages. Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English, while Chaucer wrote in Middle English, Shakespeare's and Chaucer's writing is quite distinct in terms of intelligibility to modern readers and speakers. However, even Chaucer is roughly intelligible, if awkward sounding. The better parallel to English vis a vis Classical Chinese (given what the Wikipedia article says about it) may be Old English (the language of Beowulf), as that language is basically completely unintelligible to modern English speakers. --Jayron32 03:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind, though, that every Chinese person in China, Taiwan, and some other places, will study Classical Chinese to a certain degree at school (and so does every Japanese person - mandatory part of the curriculum). Compare this to most of us native English speakers, who never study Shakespeare in the original (and many of us - including myself - never study Shakespeare, full stop). The Chinese will have a much better grasp of Classical Chinese than most native English speakers will of Early Modern English. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

However, if ancient Chinese is read out loud (using the modern pronunciations of the characters), it will generally not be very comprehensible to a modern Chinese-speaking listener, while the same is not true to the same degree of Shakespeare and modern English speakers... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true, AnonMoos, but who pronounces Ancient Chinese outloud, considering that in every single case, the pronunciation is a reconstructed hypothetical form and differs from scholar to scholar (or at least, scholars used to disagree - is there a standardised form now?)? I think the majority of people would pronounce the characters in Mandarin (or in their own dialect, if appropriate at the time). [Edit] See the beginning of MarcoPolo's post below. [Reason for strikeout]: I did not see your sentence in brackets before I posted. Apologies. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, KageTora, you never studied Shakespeare at school? And yet you grew up in Liverpool? Most schoolchildren in the UK study Shakespeare in the original at some point, in Drama or English Lit, often at GCSE (and A-Level, but that drifts out of 'most'), but frequently in a cut-down form earlier. Did you go to a different sort of school? What makes you say most native speakers never study him in the original at all? 86.166.40.199 (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I went to a normal school from the 70s to late 80s. We did English literature classes, of course, but they consisted entirely of modern literature. Shakespeare was available at A-Level in my school (and the school next door, as we combined classes for A-Level), and was only studied in Modern English (or side-by-side at best). I didn't take English A-Level, as I did two foreign languages instead, and I was not allowed to do another language. The majority of the kids who took A-Levels didn't do English A-Level, and the majority of the kids in both schools didn't even do A-Levels, meaning Shakespeare was only taught to a tiny minority in our two schools (about 30 students/year out of a potential 3,000). Things might be different now, though, as I see you use the present tense throughout your post. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I went to a normal American high school in the 80s, and we read Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, and the Scottish play in the original (with footnotes explaining the more obscure terms). But my classes were mostly for college-bound students; maybe the kids in the non-college bound curriculum read different things. Pais (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The analogy to Old English, the language of Beowulf, is probably accurate for the earlier versions of Middle Chinese, the spoken language on which Classical Chinese is based. However (and this is a big however), written Classical Chinese, unlike written Old English, has little phonetic connection to the spoken language on which it was based. Instead it uses characters largely identical to the characters used today, often with the same meanings or similar meanings. So, for a speaker and reader of modern Chinese, reading Classical Chinese would be something like reading a version of Beowulf in which each Old English word was converted into its Modern English equivalent. In fact, it would be a bit easier than that, since English underwent a much more sweeping transformation of its vocabulary after the Norman Conquest than Chinese did during the same period. So, the vocabulary of Modern Chinese is much more similar to that of Classical Chinese than the vocabulary of Modern English is to Old English. A (natively English speaking) friend of mine told me that after she had reached near fluency in Mandarin Chinese (at university, followed by a couple of years living in China), she took a course in Classical Chinese and found it very easy to master. Based on what she said, it sounds as if it was a bit more difficult than Shakespeare but maybe not quite as difficult as Chaucer. Marco polo (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the vocabulary point for two reasons. Firstly, the vocabulary is different. Classical Chinese words use one character, whereas Mandarin generally uses two characters per word. It's also a very different range of vocabulary. Even if you studied the character for the Emperor's cousin's washpot in high school, you may not remember it when you see it years later. Secondly, in the timeless prose of David Moser, "A passage in classical Chinese can be understood only if you already know what the passage says in the first place. This is because classical Chinese really consists of several centuries of esoteric anecdotes and in-jokes written in a kind of terse, miserly code for dissemination among a small, elite group of intellectually-inbred bookworms who already knew the whole literature backwards and forwards, anyway." It seems to be very hard to understand the material unless you know the social context, so that. you really have to studied the book before to have a chance at comprehension. Chinese schools work very hard at instilling that context, so I've seen people switch on a TV drama and quickly recognize the main characters as Tang dynasty politicians. Matt's talk 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is OR, but speaking as someone who received most of his education in English (including my fair share of Shakespeare in the "original") but also foundational education in Chinese, I agree with what KageTora says above. Both the Confucian Analects and Chaucer are equally difficult to understand when approached with no background other than the modern vernacular language. Perhaps classical Chinese a little more so given the very different grammar to modern Chinese. However, the ordinary school curriculum in Chinese has a lot more classical literature, both verse and prose, and so a typical person who is educated in China would have more familiarity with with classical Chinese than a tpyical person who is educated in an Anglophone country would with old English.

Also, while vernacular spoken Chinese differs greatly from classical Chinese, modern standard written Chinese is not all that different, especially in vocabulary.

I don't understand what AnonMoos means. Most Chinese people today learn classical Chinese using modern pronunciations. So reading silently and reading out loud would be equally comprehensible (or not) to the same person. Personally, I don't know anyone younger than my grandparents' generation who is still capable of reading classical Chinese using anything like classical pronunciations.

Matt's talk makes an interesting point about recognising characters. As a generalisation, Chinese culture focuses on history more than English speaking cultures. This can be seen from the vast number of history-related books in any book store. In addition, popular conceptions of historical people have been passed down through the ages with increasingly stylised, standard depictions, both through literature and also through art forms such as opera (which often prescribes the colour of a particular historical character's make-up). So if a Chinese person is watching a Three Kingdoms-period TV show, they will instantly recognise the red-faced man with the long beard as Guan Yu, the swarthy fellow with a tangle of beards as Zhang Fei, and the pale gentleman with the long ear and hair tied in a neat bun as Liu Bei... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008 -- From everything I've read, modern Chinese (especially Mandarin) has far fewer syllable distinctions (and so more homophonous characters) than ancient Chinese, so that many of the clues that are available from looking at the characters would not be available if you heard an ancient Chinese text being read out loud with a modern pronunciation. Obviously Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den is an extreme case, but similar types of difficulties would often impair the comprehensibility of ancient texts heard read out loud with modern pronunciation (more so than for Shakespeare read out loud with modern pronunciation to English speakers, I would guess, which was my point). AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"He has a duck" in Russian

Is the following translation of "He has a duck" to Russian correct? If not, what would be the best translation?

У ни́х утка.

Thanks in advance.--Leptictidium (mt) 13:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me (but you don't need the accent over the 'i'). However, it depends. Does he own the duck? Is he merely carrying it? Is he eating it? Giving birth to it? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He just owns the duck. Leptictidium (mt) 13:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence is fine, as is. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Either all my Russian has gone out of the Window (possibly, it's forty years since I took my 'O' level) or that means "They have a duck". "He has a duck is "У него утка", no? --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassed. Indeed you are correct. Sorry to the OP. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How would one ask, "Why a duck?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a surprisingly complex question, given that Russian is an inflected language.

The Russian for why is почему and duck is утка. When you say just "Why a duck?", you imply a full question, in this case probably "Why does he have a duck and not anything else?". In Russian, the concept that something possesses something else ("he has a duck") is usually, as it can be observed in the example given here, expressed by the pattern "by him there is a duck" (see Untranslatability#Possession, where there this is described in detail). Thus, even though the duck is what is being possessed, it is the grammatical subject in this sentence, and therefore has to remain in its nominative case form.

• "By him there is a duck." - "Why [is there] a duck [by him]?" - Почему утка?

But if you wish to ask somebody why they have killed a duck, you shall have to construct the accusative case form of the word "duck", because in Russian, like in English, "to kill" is a transitive verb.

• "He killed a duck." - "Why [did he kill] a duck?" - Почему утку?

--Theurgist (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• This came to mind because of an early well-known Marx Brothers schtick in which Groucho is showing a map to Chico and mentions a "viaduct". Chico, misunderstanding the word, asks, "Why a duck? Why-a no chicken?" and later on he says, "I catch on-a why a horse, why a chicken, why a this, why a that. I no catch on-a why a duck." Since it's a nonsense dialogue, it may be untranslatable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Half a decade ago the Swedish Film Institute held screenings in Stockholm of all the films by the Marx Brothers. In one of them, Chico is given a cheque. He looks at it sceptically and drops it to the ground. It magically flies up into his hands. He hands it back, insisting "This cheque's a-no good!". I laughed out loud. The rest of the audience was dead silent. It was kind of embarrassing... Gabbe (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The usual translation would actually be "У него есть утка". Есть is sometimes omitted, but usually only when there is some kind of modifier, e.g. "У него пять уток" (He has five ducks). Lesgles (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There's also the colloquial form "Oн имeeт утку". It's very commonly heard among the Russians of my acquaintance. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are synonymous, although I'd actually say that есть is the colloquial one. Иметь is used more often in the written language. Lesgles (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Он имеет утку" sounds really weird. The standard Russian form (formal and colloquial) of indicating possession is the previously-mentioned у+genitive construction, with the exception of abstract things, which can use the verb иметь (e.g., иметь что-либо в виду "have something in mind"). Using иметь with concrete possession is something I'd (personally) associate with imperfect knowledge of the language (e.g., second generation immigrants) or bilingual interference (e.g., Odessa Russian, which has been influenced by Yiddish). 128.135.222.164 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Which may account for why I was never taught that form at uni, and only ever encountered it among immigrant Russians, not a few of whom had never lived in Russia at all but were brought up in places like Harbin or Yugoslavia, and whose level of formal education in their own language varied widely. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. "Иметь" certainly never turned up in my 'O' level Russian, and if "есть" did it was probably only to distinguish it from "есть" = "to eat". We certainly never used it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? In my experience with learning and speaking Russian, у меня/тебя... есть is very common. Usually if I heard "у него утка" without есть, I would expect something to follow, e.g. "У него утка ходит по саду" (here у него = его). Есть is also quite common in the sense "there is": "в городе есть очень хорошие музеи". Or as a response to a question: "У тебя есть машина? —(Да,) есть." I agree with 128.135.222.164 about the concrete/abstract distinction with иметь, although in the bureaucratic/bookish language there are exceptions where иметь is used with concrete nouns, e.g. "иметь документы", "иметь две квартиры". Lesgles (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

100% ditto on the есть. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Onomatopaeic Expressions

Can anyone suggest a good translation for these two expressions: ハフハフとほうばると (I've written them together because in the text I have, they are occurring together). They are onomatopaeic expressions for the feeling in the nose one gets when eating something with wasabi or mustard in/on. Something short and sweet would be good, and preferably a little poetic - the kind of language you might find in a food advert. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ハフハフと is an expression used when you eat something hot, not spicy hot, but burning hot food like takoyaki, nikuman and yakiimo. It's not ほうばる, but ほおばる/頬ばる/頬張る and it's an ordinary verb. See [1]. Oda Mari (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Mari-san! I thought hobaru didn't look like onomatopoeia, and ratherr more like an ordinary word - and it was a typo in the text I have? Thanks!! That explains why I couldn't see it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the verb, ほお is cheeks and it literally describes puffy cheeks with a lot of food in the mouth. As for the onomatopoeia, when you eat some very hot food, you would open your mouth and puff, wouldn't you? That action is ハフハフ. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Mari, thanks. It all became clear as day after your last message. Thanks again! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Dogs Bollocks

[question deleted]

For the "dog's bollocks" question, see the entry for "bee's knees" on Etymonline, which doesn't mention your theory. I do not know about 'bog standard'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See Bollocks#Positive uses for both terms. The "spoonerism" theory is listed, but described as "currently not supported by evidence." 195.89.37.162 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That article does not have a reference for that theory. The page in the reference given at the end of that sentence entirely concerns "bog standard" and does not mention "dog's bollocks". I'm not saying it's wrong - I am sure the theory exists. However, it would be nice to have a reference for it. I can take it up on the talk page. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP is a sock of the banned user "Light current" and is now blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

bit o' Spanish

Can someone help me translate this bit from WP-es for an article here? The basic meaning is clear enough, but there are several bits which have me baffled:

Es aquí de saber[,] que un gran pedazo desta costa, bien mis más de 25 or o 30 leguas, y 15 buenas y aun aún 20 de ancho hasta las sierras que hacen, desta parte del Norte, la gran vega [gran Vega, Gran Vega] inclusive, era poblada de una gente [unas gentes] que se llamaban mazorijes, y otros otras ciguayos, y tenian tenían diversas lenguas de la universal de toda la isla.

(If it seems a bit odd, it was written about 1540.)

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it this[2] is the article. It might help if you could tell us what you've got so far, and what words you're struggling with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Es aquí de saber and bien mis. I figure it's something like,

"[?] that a large section of this coast, [?] of 25 or 30 leagues, and a good 15 to 20 wide up to the hills that [?], from this part of the north, including the great plain, was populated by a people called Maçorixes, and others [called] Ciguayos, and they had different languages from the general one of the island as a whole."

— kwami (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could see the original. I wonder if "mis de" is supposed to be "mas de", which is one way to say "more than"; thinking "bien mas de" as "well more than". "Saber" means "to know", but "saber" is also a noun meaning "knowledge". "Hacen" normally would be "they make", so maybe "...[a] good 15 and even 20 wide up to the mountains they make..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A League (unit) is usually taken to mean 3 miles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the article at es.wikipedia: [3] a "legua" measured anywhere from 4-7 kilometers, depending on the historical context and application. The modern, standardized "legua" is 4.44 km over land and 5.555 km over water, but there are several other historical definitions. They all seem to mean "3 miles" with the caveat that "mile" is a different distance, depending again on historical context and application. Someone else with better Spanish knowledge may want to check my translations, but that is what I read... --Jayron32 19:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That kind of uncertainty might be why the "league" was dropped as a measurement. It was tough enough just trying to define a standard mile. A league was supposedly the distance a man could walk in an hour... which for most of us is about 3 miles. I see that the word "league" seems to have two different and unrelated origins.[4] Anyway, if the distance of 3 miles or 4.7 kilometers makes sense in terms of the geography of Hispaniola, it might help with the translation. I'm fairly certain we have one or more fluent Spanish speakers here, but they might have taken domingo off. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding lots of variants on-line. (Sometimes the numbers are spelled out.) Yes, 'mis' was a typo for 'más'. That helps. (I kept thinking it might be an archaic pp for 'put' or s.t.)

I don't understand how hacen works with inclusive.

I can't verify one of the sentences at WP-es, but it's redundant. The full passage quoted, in the original text at GBooks,(more context here) is,

Aquí no llamaban caona al oro como en la primera parte desta isla, ni nozay como en la isleta de Guanahaní o San Salvador, sino tuob. Es aquí de saber que un gran pedazo desta costa, bien más de 25 ó 30 leguas, y 15 buenas, y aún 20 de ancho, hasta las sierras que hacen desta parte del Norte la Gran Vega inclusive, era poblada de unas gentes que se llamaban mazoriges, y otras ciguayos, y tenían diversas lenguas de la universal de toda la isla. No me acuerdo si diferían éstos en la lengua, como ha tantos años, y no hay hoy uno ni ninguno a quien lo preguntar, puesto que conversé hartas veces con ambas generaciones, y son pasados ya más de cincuenta años.

This is what I have in our article now:

"Here they don't call gold caona as in the first part of this island, nor nozay as in the islet of Guanahani or San Salvador, but tuob. It's worth noting here [Here you should know?] that a large section of this coast, at least 25 or 30 leagues, and a good 15 or maybe 20 wide, up to the hills which together with the Great Plain make up this part of the coast, was populated by peoples known as Maçorix, and others [known as] Ciguayos, and they had different languages than the one common to the entire island. I don't remember if they differed [from each other] in language, as it's been many years, and there is not a single person today to ask, since I've spoken often enough with both generations, and more than 50 years have passed."

— kwami (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• It might be worthwhile to pose a question or two on the article's talk page at the Spanish wikipedia. Maybe someone there who's also fluent in English could explain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

America always welcomes a new spanish-speaking immigrant. Christoper Columbus landed on the Samaná Peninsula where the hostile Ciguayos presented violent resistance. Was the OP's text written by Cristóbal Colón ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloody 'ell

Since "bloody" has an extra meaning for Brits, do they use a different word or expression to describe someone leaking red bodily fluids? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bleeding" also has both meanings. What we do is focus on the context. When the consultant surgeon asks a medical student "What's the bleeding time?", he doesn't expect an answer of "Ten past ten sir". DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not British, but American. Still, answer yourself this: Even though you use the word "fucking" in the same way that the British use "bloody", do you use a different word or expression to describe when people are, well, fucking? You are perfectly capable of understanding the difference between "He was fucking lying!" and "He was fucking his wife". In the exact same way that you understand the difference in meaning between those two sentences, a British person understands the difference between "That's a bloody lie!" and "That's a bloody knife!" Words are perfectly capable of holding different meanings in different contexts. --Jayron32 20:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been tripped up too many times by the odd differences between British and American English to assume that things work the exact same way in both. And yes, I do use a different expression to describe people having intercourse. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but do you recognize the difference in usage between "He was fucking lying!" and "He was fucking his wife!" The fact that you may choose to use different words (which is your prerogative) doesn't mean that you find the usages confusing. I trust you recognize the distinction, and likewise there's no reason to assume that the British would every confuse two different meanings of the word bloody, depending on context. --Jayron32 23:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me try this again. I was not asking a linguistic question, but rather a social one (apparently something that would only occur to an old geezer like me). To wit, does the pejorative connotation of the word cause the British to substitute a euphemism? The answer seems to be that they're more Gordon Ramsayish than not. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, does the fact that the word "bloody" has a context when it is used as a curse word cause the British to avoid using it in other contexts where it isn't a curse word? Sort of like the way that "bitch" has become a curse word for people, so they don't use the term to describe a female dog in the same way that they would use "hen" to describe a female chicken; that the perjorative use of "bitch" has caused the word to disappear from the nonperjorative contexts? Is that sort of thing what you are asking? --Jayron32 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullseye. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. In that case I have no idea. Brits would have to answer that question for themselves. Sorry. I meant no harm, I just misunderstood what you were asking. --Jayron32 06:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in some company, we would substitute a euphemism to avoid possible misunderstanding, but usually the distinction is clear from the stress (for example "bloody knife" means covered in blood if the stress is on bloody, but just an unexpected knife if the stress is on knife. Dbfirs 06:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean you would substitute a euphemism for the "covered in blood" sense, or only for the "goddamned" sense? —Angr (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Both, in some company, though I notice that the BBC has no reservations about using the word in the "covered in blood" sense. Dbfirs 07:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we understand the difference, depending on the context. We could say 'Waterloo was a bloody battle', and we could also say 'That huge steak and chips was a bloody battle', and out listeners would know exactly what we meant. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And when a commuter says "Waterloo was a bloody battle" we know he means the station was busy. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Curious, does the expression derive from the 'bloody Hell' of war, or is it a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ? — kwami (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, apparently not. Seems to come from 'bloody drunk', meaning 'as drunk as a Lord', so is ultimately tied to uses such as He comes of a bloody stock; that's why he's good to poor folks. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've occasionally heard sniggers from the audience at the line "What bloody man is that?" from Macbeth, where the word could plausibly be interpreted either way. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of the word cock. In American English it's basically used as a slang word for penis; however in Britain it's also used for rooster and a gallant. In an interview, Keith Richards once discussed the sacking of Brian Jones. He used the expression "You're out, cock". I understood he wasn't talking about a penis leaping out of an unzipped fly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when I was a kid in the UK, 'cock of the school' or 'school cock' meant the kid who could beat all the other kids in a fist-fight. When we got older, mysteriously, 'office cock' meant something entirely different. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

From Jamaican Patois:

Jamaican Patois has its own rich variety of swearwords. One of the strongest is blood claat (along with related forms raas claat, bomba claat, claat and others—compare with bloody in Australian English, which is not considered swearing).

BrainyBabe (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Which translates as "sanitary towel" (claat = cloth if I understand it correctly). Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I went on a first aid course years ago. The elderly Geordie instructor had his own way of making us remember how to deal with blood loss:

1) Apply direct pressure to the bleeding wound.

2) Sit or lay the bleeding patient down.

3) Elevate the bleeding limb.

4) Remove the bleeding patient to hospital.

5) Job bleeding well done! Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

'Bloody' not considered swearing in Australia? Hmm ... It's certainly not as unacceptable in polite company as it was when I was a child, but it is still not a word one would use when talking with a nun, a potential employer, the Prime Minister, or your maiden aunt. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems 100% acceptable in tourism adverts for Australia, though.... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who's doing the accepting. Many of us have always thought that particular campaign was ill-conceived. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Identifying mystery language

NOTE: Updated with audio (see below).

I've been asked to help a friend figure out which language the following text is written in, and Google hasn't helped much.

Novia miva, Miva oteka plemi. Elabena Baha'u'llah. Chosia evado.

Said friend has asked others about it, including a Croatian friend who suggested to her that it's not an Eastern European language. She suspects it may be an African language. "Baha'u'llah" is a proper name; the phrase might translate to some sort of statement about the beliefs of the Bahá'í Faith. Since the writings of the Bahá'í Faith have been translated into thousands of languages understood by tribal communities worldwide, it could be any one of these. Some of the words seem to be present in such languages as Ewe, Acholi and Malagasy, but as far as I can tell from searching, none of these seem to be the source language. Anyone have any better ideas? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 22:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To me this sounds vaguely like a Romance language, to the point that I imagine finding some sense in it. "Novia miva" should be Spanish "mi novia" = "my bride". "Plemi" almost sounds like an inverted French "me plaît" = "pleases me". "Elabena" sounds like Spanish "ella buena" = "she good". "Chosia evado" reminds me of Italian "così evaso" = "so escaped". Now if I perversely interpret "oteka" as a past tense of "take" (compare "a-taken"), then I get something like the following interpretation: "My bride took away my plemi[?] She is a good Bahá'i [follower of Baha'u'llah]]. So she ran away." It doesn't really make sense, but maybe you should look for local languages spoken in Italian colonies. Hans Adler 22:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd figure elabena was s.t. like "he's blessed". Or "because of" in Ewe. Who knows. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be a creole or a pidgin. For example, Haitian Creole and Tok Pisin are examples of some pidgin languages which have developed (or are developing) into full-fledged languages of their own. While I do not recognize the specific language above, it could be a creole of some Romance language combined with a local language. Given the extent of European colonialism, you tend to find the pidgins and creoles spread all over the known world. --Jayron32 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it could be Ewe in a simplified orthography. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did the text come from? Is the spelling correct? Was it originally written in the Roman script, or has it been transliterated from another alphabet? Is it perhaps a phonetic transcription? Answers to these could help narrow it down. Gabbe (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I've asked my friend to elaborate on this and will post her answers when I receive them. My gut feeling is that it may be a phonetic transcription, but we'll see. Thanks to all for your suggestions so far. Edit: She's confirmed that it is a phonetic transcription of a song that was taught to her by her husband, who learned it from his ex-wife, who's since passed away, and unfortunately, he doesn't know anything more about it. Not much, but at least it's something. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 13:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So this is like trying to reconstruct the original sentence in a game of Chinese whispers where we don't know what language the original was in? We don't even know if the word transcribed "Baha'u'llah" actually refers to Bahá'u'lláh or if it's something completely unrelated that just vaguely sounds like that, do we? This question may be unanswerable. Pais (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

True enough. I didn't have a lot of details to start out with when I volunteered to help her, but the challenge is what spurred me on to try and figure it out. As for the transcription of "Baha'u'llah", I'm pretty confident it's not an error, as all the people involved are Baha'is, and members of Baha'i choirs at that; they're regularly exposed to Baha'i folk songs from throughout the world, so it makes sense in this context. Anyway, if it's not possible to figure out which language the text is in, then so be it—there's certainly no obligation, and I'll probably keep studying on my own if there's no answer to be found here. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked up an Ewe vocabulary, trying to see if I could identify words that could sound like what's written above. So far I've pieced together something that seems like it might make sense:

Nɔ vi á, mí va, mí va, (oteka?) kplé mí, élabéná Baha'u'llah, tsó síá (Eʋeawo?)

Which would mean roughly: (Mother) (child) (the), (we come), (we come), (oteka???) with us, because of Baha'u'llah, all come from (Ewe people?). Any opinions? I looked further into Ewe mainly because of kwami's suggestion, in which "elabena Baha'u'llah" seemed like it might mean "because of Baha'u'llah". --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking further into it, "oteka" could be "wo ɖeka", meaning something like "they are one" or "they are united". Also, it seems "nɔvi" means "siblings". The whole verse might then be something like "Siblings, we come, we come, they are united with us, because of Baha'u'llah, all the people come". I'm not an expert in Ewe by any means, so I might be pulling all of this out of my hat (to be polite), but what do others think? Does this have a snowball's chance in hell of being it? It does sound vaguely like some of the African Baha'i folk songs I've heard. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be possible to upload a recording of this song, if your friend's husband still knows it? Falconus^{p t c} 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked her if she wouldn't mind providing a clip to upload to Wikipedia or Commons, but it might not be until next week. Edit: She's sent me the file, and I'm just asking her for permission to post on WP. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It may also be useful to know the late ex-wife's ethnicity. Roger (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Will ask when I get the chance, although she may have learned it from someone else and may not have known about its origins either. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, the audio of the song is now available! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have arrived here ages after the discussion. This definitely sounds like Ewe alright though I cannot make out all the words.--Natsubee (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you ever really figured this out, but I think it is Ewe. As I translate it, it would mean (roughly) "brothers and sisters come, come and have unity with us, because Baha'u'llah from now on has come". I am changing "oteka" to "wo deka", which means "make one" or "unify". Also, the last word "evado", which I translated as "has come", has the idea that something has arrived or come to pass that has been waited for or expected. The last phrase could also be translated "because of Baha'u'llah, from now on it has come to pass", as in because of Baha'u'llah, there will be unity from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.25.46 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

--- From Montreal Canada: This is a Baha'i song from Africa, confirmed 100%. I've known the lyrics by heart since I was a kid, although just phonetically (certainly with errors) without knowing the meaning, except I know it is a tribute song to Baha'u'llah, their considered prophet. In the 70s I was raised in a Baha'i family, and when I was somewhere between 5 and 10 yo., a retreat was held on our country side property, during which I got to meet people from around the world, including a tall African man, I believe he was from Burundi because in my early memories I associate my learning of this country's name to that same man. He taught us a song that I still remember. I still sing it and play on the banjo. I did not keep contact with the baha'i community and I was actually trying to Google about it when I found that thread. I will bookmark that page and come back in the future, see if the conversation evolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.86.141 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)