Language desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 27

”une association de défense des victimes de dérives sectaires”

When used in this context does “dérives sectaires” refer to cults?

Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what dérive means in this context, but in general the emotional connotations of the words cult(e) and sect(e) are somewhat switched between French and English... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original context in case that helps. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Xuxl or AldoSyrt (or other francophone volunteers) to appear as if by magic ... here are some links: It appears to be a term used by the French government. Our article on MIVILUDES translates it as "cultic deviances". Here is MIVILUDES's own definition: Qu'est-ce qu'une dérive sectaire ?.

Googling reports and comments in English on the About-Picard law, for example, does yield "cultic"/"cult" as a common translation of sectaire/secte in this context. Echoing what AnonMoos wrote, from our Governmental lists of cults and sects: "The application of the labels (cults or sects) to religious movements in government documents usually signifies the popular and negative use of the term "cult" in English and a functionally similar use of words translated as "sect" in several European languages." (referring to two articles in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion).

From consulting various paper French dictionaries, I received the impression that "dérive" was a rather technical term, except in certain specific idioms (none of which applied in "dérives sectaires")... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As AnonMoos said, "culte" and "secte" don't really have negative connotations in French. But "dérive sectaire" is basically the same as saying "cult" or "sect" in English, i.e. it gives negative connotations to the otherwise neutral "secte." Not necessarily a "cult" in the way we usually mean that in English, but certainly a fringe religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I strongly suspected that cult would be a valid translation, but I wanted to double check before inserting such a potentially contentious label into an article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop -- what I meant was that "secte" can commonly have more negative connotations than "culte" in French, the exact opposite of "sect" and "cult" in English. There's a French anti-cult group known as "Secticide" etc... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; see fr:Secte, which links to our English cult. Last paragraph of intro: "This negative connotation of secte is rejected by most of the targeted groups, as well as by certain jurists and sociologists. To denounce the possibly harmful activities of certain groups, the expression dérive sectaire has recently become the official phrase of certain governmental organizations." Penultimate paragraph of "Sectes historiques et hérésies": "The word secte may have a less pejorative connotation in other cultures: the word sect in English, for example, is rather neutral, and the word cult takes on our definition of the word secte. The word culte in French has no pejorative connotation." Lesgles (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true...we do have a usage like that in English - "sectarian" (does that ever describe anything other than violence?) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays secte has negative connotation in France. France is a secular state, therefore the French Republic accepts all the beliefs, all the religions, etc. But some organisations may use psychological manipulation to exploit their members under the cover of ~~spiritualism~~ spirituality or religion. The sectes are not reprehensible per se, but the dérives sectaires (harmful activities toward the cult members) could be. — AldoSyrt (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word dérive, in this case means "corruption". The definition of the dérive sectaire by the MIVILUDES is un dévoiement de la liberté de pensée, d’opinion ou de religion qui porte atteinte aux droits fondamentaux, à la sécurité ou à l’intégrité des personnes, à l’ordre public, aux lois ou aux règlements. Elle se caractérise par la mise en œuvre, par un groupe organisé ou par un individu isolé, quelle que soit sa nature ou son activité, de pressions ou de techniques ayant pour but de créer, de maintenir ou d’exploiter chez une personne un état de sujétion psychologique ou physique, la privant d’une partie de son libre arbitre, avec des conséquences dommageables pour cette personne, son entourage ou pour la société. " a corruption of the freedom of though, conscience and religion that is damaging to fundamental rights, security or integrity of persons, civil order, laws or regulations..." — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Aldo, "derive" in general means "drifting, deviation", but in the context, it is used in the meaning of abuse, corruption etc., anything bad that can be done by a cult, especially deviation from what a law abiding organisation would do. --Lgriot (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refracty bits

How would you describe the refracted sunlight through the trees in this photo? I'm interested in the three orange coloured circle bits, top, bottom and left. I called them (from a similar photograph) refractions and then just described them more simply as the light "splitting", since this was in an English lesson. But then I got curious, since I thought there had to be an exact term. Also, since the topic involved describing photographs, if anyone wants to have a go at a fuller description of the whole sunlight-through-the-tree-effect in the photograph, please feel very welcome. Sometimes my eloquence astounds me, so I would go for "sunlight creating refracty bits that are kind of orangey, with radiant sunlight bits going out like spokes of a bike wheel. Any improvements? IBE (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The orange bits are effects of lens flare. They're caused by reflections within the camera lens, not by the light "splitting" outside it. Deor (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, because I was just wondering whether I had seen them outside of a photograph. I thought I had, but it was just the imagination working overtime. IBE (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've sometimes seen analogous things reflected between my glasses and (i guess) the surface of my eyeball. —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bright light shining through one's eyelashes can also produce similar spots of light. See the last paragraph of Entoptic phenomenon. Deor (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in three-gendered versions of Swedish

Old Swedish and Early Modern Swedish had three genders, as do some nonstandard dialects of Contemporary Swedish. I can't seem to find any further information on what these genders practically looked like in terms of the articles – Standard Contemporary Swedish has indefinite en/ett and definite -en/-et for the common and neuter. What do these older/dialectal varieties have for the masculine, feminine and neuter? I assume ett/-et is retained for the neuter, but how is en/-en split up? --89.243.115.47 (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From this it appears that both masculine and feminine used en/-en. Good question! DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, how are the genders actually distinguished? How do the two genders differ from one another? --89.243.115.47 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the difference lay in the use of pronouns, e.g. han for masculine nouns and hun for feminine nouns. See this older grammar. Dutch has undergone a similar evolution; see gender in Dutch grammar. Lesgles (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so instead of "Kvinnan åt kycklingen, och den var mycket gott" (The woman ate the chicken, and it was very good) they would have gone "Kvinnan åt kycklingen, och han var mycket gott"? --89.243.63.131 (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so! Lesgles (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are varieties of Swedish that retain this system, actually. I have a friend from Sandviken who talks this way in some cases, especially when talking to other speakers of the same regional dialect. I seem to recall that even modern words like kamera could be referred to with the pronoun han.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upper case F

Upper case F is printed with the horizontal bits to the right of the stem. But in cursive it's written in reverse. Perhaps that last statement is not quite true. This guide suggests 2 of the horizontal bits extend both sides of the stem, while all 3 of them point left, particularly the wavy bottom one. Sometimes the middle bar is left-side only. Whatever, the immediate impression I get is of a left-facing symbol, while the printed one is unequivocally right-facing.

How did this circumstance come about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but for the record, I'm not sure that style of cursive capital F is anything like universal. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many variations (that one is a very modern version). My cursive capital F has all the top to the left, and a loop below to further distinguish it from a script T. I've no idea why the cursive tends to be the mirror image of the print form, but the same is often true of a small "r" (older cursive with curve on the left). Dbfirs 22:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what style Jack's example is from. It isn't D'Nealian or Zaner Bloser. Rmhermen (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was just the first one I found upon googling. But it seems to be exactly like the F in the upper right box in D'Nealian, except for the little hook on the tail. My own style has all bars to the left of the stem and none to the right. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a rather bad calligrapher, I'd say that it's due to scripts (like Copperplate script) where the upright stems of letters slope to from left to right, which is naturally easier for right handed writers. Therefore, if the stem extends up to the right and you extend it further to the right by adding a "horizontal bit" (technically called "an arm"), you end up with an awfully elongated letter, so it extends the other way instead. In scripts with upright stems, like foundation hand, the arm can extend to the right, bringing it closer to the Roman original. I couldn't find a reference that actually says that, but it makes sense to me. Alansplodge (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Somewhat relevant: the concept of which direction something is "facing" is dependent on culture and language. E.g If you are between me and a certain tree, I might say "Jack is in front of the tree", and feel like that was the correct way. But others might say "Jack is behind the tree", or "Jack is southwest of the tree" and they would be correct in their context. See e.g. Relative direction, and this interesting Cognitive Science article titled "Facing the Sunrise" [1]. Basically, as I understand it, Anglophones usually operate as though achiral objects are "facing" the speaker, but this is in no means universal.) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]