Language desk
< December 6	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 8 >

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.

December 7

Can "God" and "divine providence" be used interchangeably?

What's the difference? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a theological difference than a linguistic one (and so this probably belongs on the humanities desk). Divine providence requires the assumption of some sort of God-like figure. My native intuition (both theistic and linguistic) says that "divine providence" would be the actions of the deity, not the deity itself. There are, however, some who would argue that God cannot be known except through providence, or who would define God only through His providence. I also recall a number of 18th and 19th century works using "divine providence" in the way we would just say "God," though I wonder if it was a rebuff against then popular deism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of both. It first meant the "provident" or "beneficent" actions of God, but several hundred years ago it became a synonym for God.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; people some time ago began using "such and such was done by (P/p)rovidence" as a form of metonymy. Imagine that Barack Obama makes a decision and the media report it as "The White House decided to do X". They're rather comparable; the first talks about God by way of his attribute, while the second talks about the president by way of his house. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are italics sometimes used to de-emphasize?

In an email that had an actionable part I wanted to de-emphasize some of the background, so I both started the background part with a heading saying that it can be ignored or skimmed , and for added differentiation italicized the background part. This worked out really well. It was really easy to read through the main parts. I'm sometimes verbose so I think I would use this.

But the thing is, italics are usually used to emphasize - whereas I am trying to use them so that parts are easily ignored and the main message stands out more easily. Do any texts use italics this way? (For less important background information). 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italics can't de-emphasize text directly, but you could consider the italics as the standard and the less-used but more important non-italicized passages as the emphasis. As you've found out either way works. Whether this is a common custom can be debated. --2.245.69.176 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard method to "de-emphasize" text in English is to use parentheses (like this). Parentheses are used to indicate that the text within them is an "aside", that is text which relates to the main point of the writing, but is not vital to understanding it; thus are used for de-emphasizing some bit of text from the main body. Italics wouldn't work, because by convention italics are used to highlight or emphasize text which is of greatest importance (and it sounds like you want to do the opposite of that). --Jayron32 18:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While italics for individual words would generally be used for emphasis, I've seen italics used for entire paragraphs to de-emphasise the paragraph (recently in a contract, where they were used to note a correspondence address, but the contract was in Polish so the presentation style may be different to English). Bold or underlined would always seem to be emphasis.

I realise this is horrible OR, but my google-fu is not strong enough to come up with a citable source.'

MChesterMC (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stir-fry

When non-Asian Americans say they prepared "stir-fry", do they mean they prepared one vegetable-based or meat-based dish without any rice and ate that for dinner, or do they mean the whole meal (which includes rice, other stir-fried dishes on the table, soup, and non-stirfried dishes)? Or maybe they are referring to stir-fried rice, which may include rice, meat, and vegetables and thus make a complete dish? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It generally refers to anything which is stirred and fried, regardless of the ingredients, hence the name. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, does it include rice that is steamed separately but included in the meal? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boiled rice can be included (and very often is), but we still call it stir-fry, because everything else on the plate has been cooked that way. If the rice itself is fried (after being boiled), along with other ingredients, then we call it fried rice. It depends on what we consider is the main part of the dish - the rice, or the rest. Boiled rice is not really considered to be a dish, as it is hardly ever eaten on its own without anything else. In Chinese restaurants we generally get a number of different dishes and a bowl of boiled rice, but in homes we put everything on the same plate and have one each - it's unhygienic for multiple people to be eating from the same plates. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays, many Chinese families still do communal eating, but for hygienic purposes, they have "public" eating utensils to grab the food onto individual plates and bowls. Also, on a typical Chinese table setting, there are several main course dishes, and people grab whatever they want like a mini-buffet. Rice is usually received from the pot or the rice cooker, often before adding on the vegetables and meat. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to say that rice in east Asian culture is generally a side dish, the way bread is a side dish in America? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, but I think rice is even more commonly eaten than bread is eaten here. Rice is a side dish that basically comes with practically any meal. I don't eat bread three times a day. Rice is quite nutritious, as is bread, and both of them actually need to have something with them to be considered an actual dish on their own (fried rice for rice, sandwiches for bread), so the comparison is correct, in my opinion. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, if you eat stir-fry on individual plates, rice can be seen as a side dish. In reality, Chinese people often eat communally (may use shared chopsticks instead of individual chopsticks) and some of the main course dishes may never be selected by a person, because that person may not like it. I think it's harder to say what is a main course dish here, because there may be three or four main course dishes on the table, and a person favors only one or two. An American eating spaghetti and meatballs may have a piece of bread as a side. The bread is not necessarily an obligatory part of the meal, but rice that is served with stir fried eggs and tomatoes is usually obligatory to make the meal complete. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rice comes with most meals, though what place it fills depends on how wealthy you are and where you're eating. Chinese poor eat rice with soup and/or vegetables; a factory worker's lunch consists of meat, vegetables and soup with rice as a side; the wealthy, eating at an expensive restaurant, will eat all the other dishes before the rice is served and treat the rice as a filler to top up on after everything else, or sometimes a challenge to see who can finish it after everything else they've eaten. It's very rare for Chinese to serve food the way Westerners typically serve Chinese food, with a meat or vegetable dish spread on top of rice, I suspect mostly because any liquid in the rice makes it much more difficult to eat with chopsticks. All WP:OR from my time in China. GoldenRing (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my observations in China and at home, people would lift up their bowls and place their mouths on the rim to eat if there is liquid or sauce at the bottom. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled stir fry. You can read that to learn more about various dishes that are prepared that way. --Jayron32 02:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Muhammad

When I read things about Muhammad written in English by Muslims who aren't native speakers of English, I very often see "Prophet Muhammad did such and such", or "Such and such happened to Prophet Muhammad". Is there some linguistic or theological reason for omitting "the" and capitalising "Prophet", whether "Such and such happened to the Prophet Muhammad" or "The prophet Muhammad did such and such"? I'm making the assumption of "Muslims who aren't native speakers of English" because this often comes up in texts not written in fluent English, which typically come with bits such as "PBUH" that wouldn't generally be added by people of other religions or of no religion. Arabic has a definite article, so I'm left wondering if this is commonly done by non-Arabs, but I could easily be wrong. Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For examples, go to the current edition of Mujahideen and search for Prophet; this specific element was added in this edit by an IP from Pakistan. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a title of office, like "Senator Foo"? —Tamfang (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that popped into my head was that it's hardly restricted to Muhammad. For example, Christians don't usually say Jesus the Christ. Matt Deres (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although in that case it stems directly from translation of the Greek text, where omission of the definite article is common and so Ιησους Χριστος is frequently used to mean 'Jesus the Christ' but over time this became a sort of name 'Jesus Christ'. See eg. Matthew 1:1, Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ, where Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is variously translated, 'Jesus Christ', 'Jesus the Messiah' etc. Why the same thing happens in the case of Mohammad, I couldn't comment on. GoldenRing (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The" in front of "Christ" is more typically used as a standalone, as in "The Christ child" or "You are the Christ, the son of God." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSource transcription error?

(Inspired by this question on RD/S). The WikiSource transcript of George Huntington's article On Chorea includes the sentence: "It is, also, singular as it appears, sometimes the result of mitation." I'm not familiar with the word "mitation" - neither, apparently, is Google. Is this a transcription error? If so, what word did Huntington actually use? "Imitation" doesn't seem likely as the cause of a disease, but I can't think of another obvious correction. Tevildo (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone have a fat finger? Maybe Huntington means that a mutation makes you more likely to suffer from chorea? I don't know enough about the history of this kind of thing to be sure, but mutations were well known before the genetics were understood, so it makes me wonder if that's what he means. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OED doesn't know it. I suspect that it is a misreading of "irritation". --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original article; imitation (with a misplaced space) it is. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How were you able to get into vol. 26? Following your link I get somewhere where I can display some volumes of the Medical and Surgical Reporter, but not vol. 26. It's not fair. However I got the text of vol. 26 another way for those who like me can't get to it through Google Books. The paragraph HaSirpad's talking about is the first on p. 319. Contact Basemetal here 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone a while back told me the answer to your supplementary question. No, it's not fair, but Google Books doesn't make available to Europeans PD texts published after 1864 (I think it was) just in case the author of any later publication might not have been dead quite long enough. We Europeans have to look elsewhere in such cases. Andrew Dalby 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin question

I just saw a strip of the comic B. Virtanen where the alleged previous lives of Reino Murikka and B. Virtanen have this conversation, apparently in Latin:

- Credum tu revivo?

- Absurdum.

It's supposed to mean:

- Do you believe in reincarnation?

- It's nonsense.

Obviously Ilkka Heilä, the creator of the strip, doesn't understand much Latin. But how would it be written correctly? The best I can come up with for the question is Credisne ... ? and for the answer Absurdus est. How would the question be written out completely? JIP | Talk 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Credis reincartionem?" 'Reincarnation' is a mediaeval latin word already. The amswer should have been, "Non credo." Just putting an adjective in with a neuter ending without referring to the word which was asked about was not normal in Classical Latin. "By the way, 'credisne' means 'don't you believe...?' KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it should be "Credis reincarnationi?" (dative case), though reincarnatio is not a Classical Latin word, as you mentioned. The ancient Greeks called it Metempsychosis (not sure what word the Romans would have used). "Absurda est" (with feminine ending referring to feminine noun reincarnatio) would seem to be an acceptable answer... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my guess is it has to be: "Credis in reincarnationem? -- Absurdum est". I'm basing my guess on constructions such as "Credo in unum deum" (for credere). As to "absurdum est" (no agreement with "reincarnatio" but use of an impersonal neuter), well it's just a hunch. After everyone here is done, we'll go to Vicipædia and ask some of those guys.

Contact Basemetal here 21:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those Vicipaedia geeks. Basemetal's "Credis in reincarnationem?" is good ecclesiastic Latin, but Cicero & co would have used the dative construction. Neander / 85.76.5.211 (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wiktionary....Quote: Crēdō often uses dative case with persons believed in, but accusative case with things or concepts believed in. Accusative usage may be accompanied by a preposition: crēdimus in Deum = "we believe in God". KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionay needs correcting in this case. First, credo uses dative case with persons and things believed in (on the latter, witness e.g. Livius 45.8.6 credere praesenti fortunae 'to believe in the present advantages'; Sallust Iug. 106.3 credere virtuti suorum 'to believe in the valour of his men'; etc.) Second, it's misleading to say that credo uses "accusative case with things or concepts believed in". Accusative with credo changes the sense of the verb (into 'to lend something to somebody' or 'to trust something to somebody') and, besides, doesn't occur without an accompanying dative, witness Cic. Rab.Post. 2.4 credere grandem pecuniam Alexandrino 'to lend big money to A.'; Liv. 2.45.10 credere arma militi 'to trust weapons to soldiers'. It's also misleading to say that "{a]ccusative usage may be accompanied by a preposition" as if credo in Deum and *credo Deum were optional variants. They're not. Neander / 85.76.20.24 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What geeks we are. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait till you see those Vicipædia people. Contact Basemetal here 21:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As in veni, vidi? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try studying HTML - at first it was all geek to me... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If dative belongs here, how would you say "I believe Anita"? —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original question is interesting, and seems to be written purposefully in the Monty Python style of the Latin Lesson - Romanes eiunt domus. The question says 'credum tu revivo' - this would literally be translated as '[accusative of someone called] Credus [randomly added second person singular pronoun] you [unrelated verb in the first person singular present indicative] I live again.' KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Vicipaedia geek weighing in :-) To ask "do you believe in reincarnation?" in classical Latin, I'd probably say "credisne mortuos iterum victuros?" which is literally "do you believe the dead will live again?" Or one could say "credisne nos alteram vitam habituros?" -- "do you believe we will have a second life?" The word "reincarnatio" is, as noted above, post-classical; perhaps a classical author would have preferred a Greek term, as "credisne metempsychosin?" -- "do you believe in metempsychosis?" The concept was, of course, available; remember how Ennius in his Annales narrates an apparation/vision/dream of Homer who tells the narrator that Ennius is Homer re-incarnated and that he was also a peacock in another life!

"Credis reincarnationi" is not impossible, though credo + dative is more usually with a person, in the sense "believe what X says." So "Credo Anitae" = "I believe Anita" or "I trust her."

To say "it's nonsense," "absurdum" would be a sensible answer, in the neuter as referring to the statement or matter at hand. One could also say "absurda est" (sc. reincarnatio or metempsychosis, both feminine in Latin), or "absurda est res" (now the adjective agrees with res -- idea, thing, business...). One could also answer "non credo" but that's not the same as saying "it's ridiculous." One could also answer "minime," a typical way to say "no."

Our page Metempsychosis gives a handful of classical references, if anyone wants to read further. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"By the way, 'credisne' means 'don't you believe...?'" I was taught in school that Latin uses an interrogative suffix -ne, just like my native Finnish uses -ko/-kö. An example sentence was Visne cafeum bibere? "Do you want to drink some coffee?" I also remember the Latin translation of Asterix in Britain, which had this conversation:

-Tune es, Asterix?

-Su... su... sum!

-Ain'tu? Cur non barbatus es?

It also shows the use of -ne as an interrogative suffix. Are both uses correct, or is there something I'm missing here? JIP | Talk 18:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, just like in English - "Wouldn't you like a cup of tea?" - the use of the negative here does not imply that the person you are talking to has shown some kind of resentment for tea. "Tune es?" could easily be translated as "Isn't it you?", implying a jocular and mild disbelief. It would more likely be translated as 'Is it really you?', as the 'ne' suffix emphasises the actual word that the question is about, in exactly the same way as in Finnish. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in Finnish, the interrogative suffix -ko/-kö is mandatory for yes/no questions. For example, Haluat kahvia? or Sinä olet? would, in fact, be grammatically indicative, not interrogative statements. Only the rising intonation caused by the question mark would imply that the speaker is already sure the addressed wants coffee or is the person in question, and the speaker is just waiting for an affirmative answer. The way I was taught Latin in school is that the interrogative suffix -ne is also mandatory for yes/no questions. Do you mean that in Latin, if I were to ask a honest question without any sort of implication, the proper grammatical way would be Vis cafeum bibere? or Tu es? That seems a bit strange, especially given that the only thing separating them from indicative statements is the rising intonation. At least in languages with less free word order than Latin or Finnish, such as English, Swedish or German, the word order being switched around indicates an interrogative sentence. JIP | Talk 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be the difference between 'Haluatko kahvia?' and 'Haluat kahviako?' - the first would be a simple question asking if the other person wants coffee, whereas the second would be a question asking if the person specifically wants coffee. This is how I understand it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not have any recordings of actual ancient romans speaking, I do believe that they also used intonation to indicate a question. 'Ne' as an ending was not mandatory, and in fact, in all of my eight years of Latin, I really don't think I have seen it much, even whilst studying Cicero, who uses rhetorical oratory a lot. Maybe just for simple yes/no questions, I can agree. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can also ask questions with "nonne" and "num" - "nonne" if you expect an affirmative answer, and "num" if you expect a negative one. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me mention that, rather than head scratching, poring under candle light over heavy dusty mouldy Latin grammars, and defacing public monuments with Latin graffiti in the hope that a literate cop will set your Latin grammar straight (like in "The Life of Brian"), an easy and fun way to discuss matters of Latin grammar and usage is to do it at Vicipaedia's Taberna. A good number of Vicipaedia geeks will only be too happy to answer your questions. Questions can be asked in English too. Contact Basemetal here 22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked a question over at the Latin Wikipedia. I wrote my question in English, but I think I can read replies in Latin. To elaborate further on the Asterix conversation, the scene was during a thick fog, where people could not see each other. Asterix and Obelix were fighting against Roman legionaries. Obelix stumbled upon someone, and wasn't sure if it was Asterix or a Roman. He asked Tune es, Asterix? The Roman (for that was who he was) said Su... su... sum! Obelix's hand touched his face, and when he felt only smooth skin, he replied Ain'tu? Cur non barbatus es?, reflecting that Roman legionaries were under orders to always shave their beards and moustaches, whereas they were symbols of pride for Gaulish warriors. Upon discovering it wasn't Asterix after all, Obelix knocked him out. To me, it seems like Obelix was genuinely confused about whether he had encountered Asterix or not. After all, the fog made it impossible for him to see who it was. JIP | Talk 00:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - On ne versus no ne, Gildersleeve and Lodge say that the unmarked questions (without ne) "are chiefly passionate in their character, and serve to express Astonishment, Blame, Disgust" and are "characteristic of the Comic Poets." I don't have percentages, but Cicero certainly used questions with ne. From the first Catiline oration: "Nihilne", "Meministine", "Potestne". But there are also several unmarked questions, and some with nonne, num, an, (and many with quis, quid, etc.). Lesgles (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your interpretation of the Asterix conversation is correct. I have it in French. The fog is a pea-souper. Obelix says "C'est toi, Asterix?" That's normal spoken French, the question does not differ from a statement except for the question mark (representing question intonation). The answer could be yes or no: Obelix simply doesn't know. In Latin, using -ne means, likewise, that the answer could be yes or no. Andrew Dalby 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Biblical names across languages

According to our article List of biblical names, there are around 2600 names mentioned in the Bible. Is there anywhere on or off Wikipedia where I can get a table showing the usual English names of persons and/or places mentioned in the Bible, along with their equivalents in various modern languages? That is, I am looking for something like the following, but for many hundreds or thousands of Biblical names:

English	French	Spanish	Italian	German
Adam	Adam	Adán	Adamo	Adam
Elizabeth	Élisabeth	Isabel	Elisabetta	Elisabet
Eve	Ève	Eva	Eva	Eva
Joseph	Joseph	José	Giuseppe	Josef
Mark	Marc	Marcos	Marco	Markus
Mary	Marie	María	Maria	Maria
Matthew	Matthieu	Mateo	Matteo	Matthäus

I'm primarily interested in English, French, Spanish, Italian, and German. I could compile such a list myself by scraping our own list article and extracting the interlanguage links, though this would be somewhat incomplete and error-prone. I'd much prefer something pre-existing which is easily accessible and confirmed to be correct. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but I have a suggestion to shorten your search. d:Special:WhatLinksHere/Q14943515 is the Wikidata page for what links to "biblical character". Each link from that page will give you the names of the Wikipedia articles for that characters name in a load of languages. --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not as specific as what you're looking for, but this might help your search: Wiktionary has a list of male given names in multiple languages, and a list of female names (and a list of Biblical names but only in English). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]