Language desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

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.

December 15

Rastrogar (or Rasrogar)

In Old Norse, what does this mean? It came up in a recent episode of QI, but Stephen Fry refuses to tell us what it means. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it's "rass" (arse) + "ragr" (unmanly, see also argaz). It's mentioned at Talk:Ergi#Untitled_comments. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely rassragr, and it gets translated as "woman's arse" here (the snippet view is off-target for me but it might work for you). There are also discussions of the word here and here at p. 6, from which it's clear that the insult is all about passive homosexuality. --Antiquary (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do "love marriages" involve parental consent or approval?

Yes, I know that love marriages are based on romantic love. But in practice, people may take their parents' opinions on the marriage and marriage partner, making marriage less about sexual attraction and more about starting a family. Do these marriages count as "love marriages"? Or do love marriages refer specifically to marriage based ONLY on the mutual romantic love between the couple REGARDLESS of what their family members have to say about the arrangement? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking about what qualifies as a "love marriage" at the same time as...OK...I have no idea what you're actually asking about. --Onorem (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What qualifies as a "love marriage". Does it involve parental consent or approval? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to define 'love marriage' for me. It's not a term I'm familiar with. I'm not sure how love as a feeling is supposed to be controlled by consent or approval. --Onorem (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love marriage. The article has issues, namely because it's poorly cited. It also does not list such marriages in non-Western cultures or whether such marriages exist in non-Western cultures. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Onorem: WP:WHAAOE, Love marriage.

71.79...: Love marriages with parent approval are more likely to succeed than those where the parents disapprove, so many people usually try to see if their parents like the potential spouse. Arranged marriages still require the consent of whoever is getting married (because marriages where one spouse hates the other are even more likely to fail than ones where the in-laws are unhappy). Forced marriage are entirely dictated by the parents or by only one spouse, even if it's completely against the will of one or both persons in the marriage.

Because a parent's disapproval can make a love marriage riskier or less likely, and because a child's disapproval can prevent an arranged marriage, I've personally come to see arrange marriages and love marriages as ends of a spectrum rather than separate and distinct practices. However, most Westerners usually see arranged marriage and forced marriage as the spectrum, with love marriages completely separate and distinct.

That said, a love marriage can still occur even if the two families completely hate their new in-laws. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without sexual attraction, how do you manage to start a family? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption, Artificial insemination, Close your eyes and think of England, etc. --Jayron 32 16:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a man has to "close his eyes an think of England", there could be trouble brewing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the original question is that love marriages may involve parental consent, but they can take place without parental consent. In response to Bugs, that depends on the man and his cultural context. There is the occasional man who can control his desires in the name of duty. Probably more significantly, there are cultures where marital fidelity is not really expected of the man. So the man can limit sex with his wife to procreation while satisfying other desires elsewhere. Even more significantly, though, people in arranged marriages can and often do grow to love one another, especially if they have honestly consented to an arranged marriage. Initial attraction isn't really so important in a long-term relationship. More important is to learn to love and appreciate one's partner. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Middle French

[cross post from [1]] Hello:

What does "Le Livre de la Deablerie" translate to in English (the title, not the entire poem)? Also, can someone translate these four lines to English:

"Viença, le chief des ruffyens,
Houlier, putier, macquereau infame
De maint homme et de mainte fame,
Poisson d'apvril, vien tost a moy"

Thank you. Seattle (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rough translation of the title is "The Book of Devilry" (another possibility is Mischief). It seems to feature a conversation between Satan and Lucifer apparently so should be something along those lines. Can't make much headway on the verse though I'm afraid. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go, but I have not formally studied Middle French, so I may be wrong on several words:

Here he is, the chief of the ruffians|debauched men,

Debauchery, stink, infamous procurer,

Of many men and many women,

April fool, come soon to May.

I must point out that April fool in French is linked to Fish, so the mackerel must have a sort of relationship with it. Maybe some more context would help (what was before? what comes after?)

--Lgriot (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Vien ça" does mean "come here" (or "[he] comes here") but here it is more likely to be the nickname of the head hoodlum, the pimp, isn't it? I didn't know "mai" was written "moy" in Middle French. But even if this is the case, could there be a pun on "moy" meaning both "May" and "me"? I agree about a pun between "poisson (d'avril)" (literally "April's Fish") and "maquereau" which means both "pimp" and "mackerel". In my opinion "putier" means "procurer of whores" ("pute" = "whore"). Your English translation: "...the chief of the ruffians, debauchery, stink, infamous procurer..." seems to me to have some slight problems with English grammar. In my opinion "putier" means the same thing as "maquereau" and also "houlier", even though I'm not familiar with that word. Btw, I really hope a Middle French specialist will weigh in so we don't have to go through this

. Contact Basemetal here 15:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The context is at [2], if that helps. Seattle (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the book (context link here above) there is a glossary [pages 753 - 769] (from Middle French to "modern French"). Unfortunatly Google books does not display all the pages. From it: houlier =proxénète = pimp, procurer. – AldoSyrt (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't macquereau infame "infamous mackerel"? μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I didn't see it at first sight, I too found the pun interesting and appealing when you mentioned it. But now that I've seen the context and entire poem, I can tell you, after all there is no pun between mackerel and april's fool (fish). Please see my arguments here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Translation_from_Middle_French

"Viens ici, chef des voyous,
Proxénète, souteneur, maquereau infâme
De maints hommes et de maintes femmes,
Poisson d'avril, viens tout de suite à moi"

in English

"Come, chief of thugs,
Procurer, pimp, infamous cadet
Of many men and many women,
April's fool, come to me at once"

Akseli9 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)'[reply]

Like I said at the other desk, if you've read the entire poem, more than 20000 eight-syllable lines in Middle French, in a few short hours... I can only say: "Wow!". Contact Basemetal here 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said I read one scene of the play. I've read the short scene where Lucifer insults Sathan, from line 295 to line 346. It makes perfect sense. Middle French sounds very easy to me because I'm French (except for a word from time to time that I don't know). Akseli9 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Beware the faux amis though. In some cases words that may seem familiar to you may have changed their meaning in 500 years. Contact Basemetal here 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Akseli9 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the glossary, included in the book, I mentionned in my previous post ruffyen = débauché. Therefore I would translate the first verse: "Come , chief of debauched people," — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Isn't it possible in poetry, to use debauched as a noun rather than an adjective? Then the first verse would be "Come, chief of the debauched"? Akseli9 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say, I am not an English native speaker. In French débauché is a past participle, an adjective and a noun. — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Just want to say that I agree with the good progress being made above, especially that I got wrong putier, it must be indeed pimp. Also, here is where I got that "moy" could mean May (or have both meanings): http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/moy link wich I got from https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/moy) --Lgriot (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone please correct the grammar in this sentence

Question by Ram nareshji deleted as possible copyio [3] Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are graphic words mostly used instead of gore?" KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does that statement actually mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding the meaning of the original sentence correctly, I would suggest "graphic language" instead of "graphic words." Instead of mostly I would use generally, or usually. I would also clarify "depictions of gore." The whole sentence would read "Why is graphic language usually used instead of depictions of gore?" --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant "why using the word "graphic" rather than the word "gore"? Akseli9 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's (mostly) what I'm thinking (though with the formulation "Why is the word 'graphic' mostly used instead of 'gory'?"), since "graphic violence" usually means that there's blood or gore are shown instead of implied. Graphic language doesn't equate to gore. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Graphic" means depicted in detail: graphic sex, graphic nudity, graphic violence. Gore means actual blood, the blood of wounds. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

apostrophe

I think the correct symbol for apostrophe is "'" (U+0027), but why do many articles use "’" (U+2019) instead? --Capim Dourado (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe#Typographic form explains that your prefered form originated to reduce the number of keys needed on a typewriter but the other form is in fact original. Rmhermen (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And MOS:QUOTEMARKS explains that the "typewriter apostrophe" (') is preferred at Wikipedia to the "curly apostrophe" (’); likewise " is preferred over “ and ”. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capim Dourado -- In many contexts, ASCII 39 was a right single quote mark (or apostrophe) and ASCII 96 was a left single quote mark until the early 1990s (such as in the MS-DOS Code page 437 character set). For some reason, Microsoft Windows switched the interpretation of ASCII 39 to a straight (or "typewriter") quote mark and the interpretation of ASCII 96 to a completely useless spacing grave accent character, and that's the interpretation which prevails today... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII code 96 has been a grave accent since the 1960s (see "The Evolution of Character Codes, 1874-1968", which is linked from the ASCII article). Code 39 originally served double duty as apostrophe and acute accent, and perhaps that justified/motivated the use of code 96 as a left single quotation mark, but it was always nonstandard. I don't know if Microsoft had any role in this, except perhaps by following a published standard at the expense of backward compatibility, which is the opposite of the usual complaint about them. -- BenRG (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing grave accent was one possible interpretation of character 96, but mainly in the context of paper output devices which allowed overprinting and/or strictly 7-bit "national variants" of ISO-646 -- neither of which was greatly relevant to mainstream microcomputing during much of the 1980s (when daisywheel printers were a declining niche market), and which became even less relevant after the 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]