Language desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 26 >

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.

July 25

Napoleon quotation

The quote attributed to Napoleon about an army marches on its stomach is correctly said "une armée marche à son estomac" in French? As an aside did Napoleon actually say it? Thanks in advance! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1], it's given as "Une armée marche à plat ventre", and attributed to him while on St Helena. This one [2] has "à son estomac", and this one [3] has "sur son ventre". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Fut.Perf., that was more than I was expecting! However the question still remains at least on how it would be properly said in French by native French speakers. (Though with all these possibilities I guess a provencial like me could just pick the coolest sounding one lol).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker, but "Une armée marche sur son ventre" has the right sound. This is not to say that Napoléon said it like that...he came from Corsica, and was ancient Italian aristocracy....Lectonar (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Napoléon spoke (with an accent) and wrote perfect French. I do not understand "une armée marche à plat ventre". The phrase "être à plat ventre" means "to lie on one's stomach", and "se mettre à plat ventre devant quelqu'un" means "to grovel to someone". The other two ("une armée marche à son estomac/sur son ventre") mean "a good army is an army well fed", that is, logistics are of the highest importance. I don't know what Napoléon actually said. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, interesting point about "a plat ventre". Looks as if all these versions were the result of people trying to translate back from something like the English "on its stomachs", and this one got it just a bit too literal. If, as that source claims, the remark was made while he was on St Helena, then of course it is quite possible that it was originally transmitted only through English reports. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that several sources, for example this one, attribute this "proverb" to both Napoléon and Frederick the Great (may be in French!). — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Frederick had not so good German, but was fluent in French...and after thinking this through: it might have been a thing he would have said, as he was a master of logistics too. Lectonar (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC) And the thing with the groveling just might be an allusion to his Grognards....Lectonar (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grognards were too proud to grovel: La garde meurt et mais ne se rend pas ! — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

C'est plutôt bizarre, en Allemand ca se traduit comme ca: "Die Garde stirbt, doch sie ergibt sich nicht"...."La garde meurt, mais ne se rend pas....Lectonar (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You're right! (BUT you can sometimes find et, for example here) — AldoSyrt (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

May be, but actually she could not yield when she had died before, kind of self-evident, as dying is so lethal and makes you incapable of yielding/surrender.... Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

He, général Cambronne, claimed that he never said that: « Je n'ai pas pu dire "la Garde meurt mais ne se rend pas", puisque je ne suis pas mort et que je me suis rendu », same kind of argument as yours. But nonetheless, the meaning of et in French is restricted neither to a "logical and" nor to "and then". From my Petit Robert: ET ... sert ... à exprimer une addition, une intersection, une liaison, un rapprochement;. The use of mais is better because it introduces the opposite idea: to surrender-and-live vs to die. But, it is not formally the opposite idea, he said "not surrender". Yet, mais is also used to (Petit Robert): introduire ... une addition, une précision indispensable. (End of exegesis ;-)) — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Whatever Napoleon said, see The Grand Failure: How Logistics of Supply Defeated Napoleon in 1812. Alansplodge (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for this, I am very interested in uncovering this mystery somehow, and really appreciate all the responses on topic. Please if anyone has more to add or a different perspective I am all ears!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine version of Muhammad

Are there any female variants in any languages of the name Muhammad? (Spanish has Jesusa.) --66.190.69.246 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamida is the female form of Hamid (well, I suppose), and Hamid is based on H-M-D, which includes Mohammed. IBE (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how accurate it is but this PDF gives Muhammadah, Mohamada, Muhamada and Mohameda. Also, asks if it is a valid name for girls. By the way if you Google the names in quotation marks you will find several hits on Facebook for women. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as pure Arabic grammar goes, there's no problem with adding a feminine ending onto the stem II passive participle محمد to get a feminine counterpart محمدة. I don't know how often it's used as a name, though... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPA for pronunciation of 'polymer'

(Asked per this discussion) How is the pronunciation of the word "polymer" written in IPA? The Wikipedia article has it as /ˈpä-lə-mər/ (which seems to be incorrect). According to the Wiktionary entry, it is /ˈpɒl.ɨ.mə/ (UK) and /ˈpɑ.lɪ.mɚ/ (US). Please help by correcting the pronunciation given in the Wikipedia article. Thanks in advance.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 16:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

/ˈpä-lə-mər/ is not IPA but follows a pronunciation key used in many American dictionaries. By the time I edited it, this had already been converted to IPA, but I further modified it to /ˈpɒl.[invalid input: 'ɨ'].mər/ to follow the Wikipedia style, using the symbol /ɨ/. This covers both the UK and US pronunciations given in Wiktionary as well as the weakening of the middle vowel to /ə/ which is in fact the most common realization in the US. Iceager (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the sound represented by /ɨ/ doesn't really occur in the overwhelming majority of the various dialects of English but the symbol is nonetheless used by convention in American circles to represent the "schwi". /ɪ̈/ is the correct symbol for this Near-close central unrounded vowel although the 3rd edition of the OED has adopted a completely different convention using the unofficial IPA extension symbol ᵻ.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Describing all-knowing eyes, full of wisdom

"There was something about his eyes as well; the way his attentive, all-knowing eyes seemed to burn with an infinite wisdom and knowledge."

Can I use this sentence or does it sound completely odd?

109.247.62.59 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what strikes me first: I wouldn't necessarily associate burning with wisdom and knowledge....then there is the use of "eyes" two times....trying to write a story? Lectonar (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "eyes" two times... ye I can see that now. Very good point. Indeed, a story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Revelation 1:14 and 2:18.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I find the repetition of "eyes" acceptable as a means of emphasis, the use of "all-knowing" and "knowledge" could be improved by a suitable synonym. As has been mentioned above, instead of "burn" you may consider "glow" / "shine" / "radiate". Do not hesitate to transfer a suitable percentage of your royalties to our bank accounts :o) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:Royalties a redlink? Lectonar (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with the constructive criticism above, it read very naturally to me. Part of this is context, since the other requests we have had here for "workshopping" a draft passage have tended to show the writers up rather badly. You are clearly capable, the more so by comparison. Personally, I would try to change the repetition of "knowing..knowledge". I would just leave it at "...burn with an infinite wisdom." I see no reason to add "knowledge" at the end, since you are talking about the way his eyes seem, so you don't need to nail it down precisely (I assume). I agree that "eyes" can be repeated for emphasis, although you might consider fixing it. I don't know how - you might say "the way those attentive, all-knowing eyes.." or perhaps "his eyes as well, those attentive, all-knowing eyes that seemed..." IBE (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goal

In normal English a goal is something one aims for.

In Australian football, the football code I'm most familiar with, the goal is the thing one aims for in order to score.

I've recently realised that in Association football (soccer), a goal is something one defends, not the thing one aims for.

How did that seemingly illogical usage come about? HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because according to this [4], in Middle English gol meant boundary line? People defend that kind of thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The defence is incidental; the point of the game is that the other side is aiming for the goal. Henry ^Flower 23:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed MY point. Association football says "Two teams...compete to get the ball into the other team's goal". That's clearly saying that my team would be aiming for the OTHER team's goal. It's the opposite usage to that in normal English. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as partly an ambiguity of the English genitive. You're trying to get the ball into the goal owned by the other team, not the goal of the other team. There is also a slight confusion in that the word "goal" is being used in the sense of a goal area rather than a thing to strive for. I'd bet that this same issue will show up in all codes of football, not just soccer. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Although "guarded" by or "defended" by might be better than owned. These goal sports would not be much sport if no one was defending that space/location/place. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that it was a confusion between the genitive of possession and the genitive of attribution. In the case being discussed, the genitive of possession is being used; that's what I meant by "owned". --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, the place they keep/hold (inviolate). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore - I began by discussing Australian football. That form of language doesn't seem to happen when that game is discussed. Nobody "owns" the goals. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ordinary usage of fans and commentators, maybe. But have you checked the actual rulebook? --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't know where to look. It's just not a concept that's part of the game. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the same usage is found (and, like the op, has confused me since childhood) in American Football. For example, when a team is on their own one-yard line (i.e. the end of the field furthest away from where they need to be in order to score), they are said to be "backed up against their own goal line" but it's the line that the other team needs to cross in order to score.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 has confused you since childhood? Your childhood, or his? --Trovatore (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

But in football, accidentally scoring against the goal you defend yourself is also called an "own goal", so what's the difference?

HiLo48, I am not from Victoria so am not familiar with AFL. I don't know if the concept of "defence" exists in AFL. If it does, how do you describe a person who is trying to prevent a member of the opposite team from scoring a goal? Do you say he is "defending his team's goal", or "defending the opposite team's goal"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird post. You start off by saying "But in football..." Only a soccer fan would not think to clarify which football in this thread, so I suppose I can guess what you mean, but you really could have tried a bit harder there. Did you see the way I introduced the topic? As for how we describe defenders' roles in Australian football, we simply say they are defending, or playing in defence, or similar. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I think we are all entitled to use our preferred nomenclature for the various codes. In the bit of Australia where I come from, AFL is never called "Australian football", and "football" is universally understood to mean soccer - and I think we are all cosmpolitan enough to understand each other's language. I find it pretty "weird" that an essentially Victorian game claims to be the Australian code.

About the role of the defender, my question was more specific, if you were talking about his relations with the goal that he is defending, would you call that his team's goal, or the other team's goal? It seems to me that your question assumes that AFL has a different nomenclature on this point with (soccer) football, but it's still not clear to me that it does. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of being entitled; it's a question of the context. In a thread on association football, no one would expect you to keep saying association. But when we're comparing different codes, I think it's reasonable to specify. To me, football by default means (of course) American football, but in this thread I would be sure to make clear which one I meant. --Trovatore (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in a thread about American football and soccer football. But the question is about "Australian football" and soccer football. "Australian football" might be called "Aussie rules" or "AFL" or "Australian football" in Australia, even "footie", but it would rarely be called "football", so an unqualified reference to "football" in Australia means either (1) all four of the main football codes, or (2) soccer football. The reference was clear in context, and HiLo48 understood it, so the issue is not about whether the intended audience would understand, it is purely about whether one set of dialectical terminology sould be privileged over another, and in my view it shouldn't. As I said, we are all entitled to use whatever we are used to provided the addressee can understand it.

No-one in real life says "association football". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another American football oddity is that the goal posts are on the end line, 10 yards behind the goal line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to nitpick the terms used in sports is a futile effort. Consider Rugby, where a "try" is a type of score, even though if you "try" to score but fail, it's not a "try". Then there's American football, in which the term "safety" is used in two totally different ways: as the name of a type of defensive player, and the name of a type of scoring play. And in baseball, if you "strike" the ball, it will go somewhere, whereas if you swing and miss, it's a "strike". The pitcher (who actually throws, not pitches) always pitches a ball, but it's only a "ball" if it's outside the strike zone and the batter doesn't try to hit it. And if the batter does hit it, it could be a "hit" or it could be an "out", and the hit/struck ball could be a fair ball or a foul ball, despite not being a "ball". Oh, and the foul lines are in fair territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that you can strike out but not be out. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. In fact, that situation has been known to dramatically affect the course of a game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CRICKET: AS EXPLAINED TO A FOREIGNER...

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly clear to me, but it might baffle the soccer fans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in (American) Football, when you score it's a touchdown, even though you don't, and in rugby it's not a try until you do (touchdown).77.96.50.64 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Downing the ball used to be required in American football too, but has not been for many years, as "breaking the plane" of the goal line is now considered sufficient (unless it's a pass reception, which is another complex story). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP: in rugby "The term try comes from try at goal, signifying that originally, grounding the ball only gave the opportunity to try to score with a kick at goal." — AldoSyrt (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think answer here may be the absence of an offside rule in Australian football. The Rugby codes, the Gridiron codes and Soccer are games where a team captures field territory from their opposition team, as in a war. There's a Wikipedia article about "territory-gaining sports" or something like that, but I'll be bleddy demmed if I can find it. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment immediately made me think of Field hockey, a sport that abolished the offside rule maybe 30 years ago. There's this very clear sentence in our article:- Throughout the game being played you are always "attacking" your goal and "defending" the opposite goal. That's very logical, and just like Aussie Rules. And I doubt if the concept has changed since before offside was abolished. HiLo48 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The field hockey offside rule was gotten rid of in 1996. Being a defensive midfielder by nature, I thought it was the end of the world as we know it, until I found out I could nip into the "D" and pot the odd goal myself. The forwards in field hockey now make leads into space and call where they want the ball just like Aussie Rules forwards have done for 150 years.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]