Language desk
< February 15	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 17 >

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.

February 16

Difference between "god" and "bra"?

When do you use "god" and when do you use "bra" in a sentence? Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think one would tend to use "god" in a sentence in reference to a supposed being with supernatural powers, and I would think that one would use "bra" in a sentence in reference to a ladies undergarment worn in proximity to breasts. These would not be the only uses for these terms but I think these would be the uses most commonly encountered. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's in English, but in another language the two words have (almost) the same meaning. Count Iblis (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which other language? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Zandali, Bugs. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the god of redlinks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Presumably Norwegian and Swedish. (see bra and god). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"God" is generally used as an adjective, "bra" is generally used as an adverb. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"When did you become a god person?", she asked. He replied, "It's not a matter of when, or even why, but bra". She turned and left, perplexed as usual. That afternoon she called her lawyer and commenced divorce proceedings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

There are those who think that both are part of a good foundation, and can offer support when needed. However, brief periods away from them can be very freeing. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Regular close contact with each can prove to be very uplifting Lemon martini (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "god" and "bra" is that there is evidence that bras exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is strange though that there would be such a big diffrence between an adjective and an adword in Norwegian. Al least, I have the impression that Norwegian is a sort of a messy "anything goes" language when it comes to grammar. Count Iblis (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword in Cookatoo's reply is generally. this forum post gives a good explanation that's also mostly accurate for Norwegian. On the other hand:

He is a good man -> Han er en bra mann ("god" sounds less natural)
He is a good human being -> Han er et godt menneske (In Swedish, "bra" would also be acceptable)
The car is good -> Bilen er bra
The car has good acceleration -> Bilen har god/bra akselerasjon

Just a couple of examples of "bra" being used as an adjective. From a Norwegian dictionary definition of "bra": god til sitt bruk; tjenlig, god. Similarly, for "god", we find:av høy kvalitet, bra, fin, gagnlig. I think there is no hard and fast rule about when to use one or the other, so I imagine it must be a bit troublesome for a student of Norwegian. decltype (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Count Iblis (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, why did you initially ask the question in such a way as to invite the default interpretation, i.e. that this was a question about English? And then, hint that it may have been about another language, but without naming that language? What is the name of this game? ... Wait, I've just read your user page. The name is "Being a dick because I can". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The default interpetation is in fact that this is a question about a Scandinavian language, not about the English language. While I don't have problems with the joke answers here, if you do, I'm not to blame. This question can only be interpreted as a serious question about the Scandinavian languages and we we have quite a few regulars from these countries here. Also, I have asked a few questions about Norwegian a few times before here, so even the non-Norwegian regulars here could have known that this is a question about Norwegian simply by looking at my contributions on the language desk.

Naming the language is pointless, if you don't know what language this is about, you are not qualified to answer the question. Count Iblis (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non-response. But to the extent that it is a response, it serves to confirm what I said above. Bye now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what you think? Just admit that the fundamental reason why people could have been wrong footed in the first place is precisely because of the known problems with the Ref Desk (non serious responses etc.). I happen to be one of the regulars who mostly stays away from that sort of behavior here, so it's only logical that the usual suspects got pissed when this question did turn out to be a serious question. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not serious. You know full well that "god" and "bra" are common English words, and there was no reason to believe you were enquiring about any other language. Your past history of occasionally asking questions about Norwegian is supremely irrelevant here, unless we're all supposed to remember who's asked about what going back to Day 1 of the ref desks. Or we're supposed to laboriously trawl through all your past contributions to glean some hint that perhaps the apparent context of the question is not the real context. What utter rot! What magnificent trolling! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the question does not make sense as a serious question in English and I was quick to reply to the first responder that the question is about the words in another language in which the two words do have (almost) the same meaning. After that point anyone who didn't know what language I was referring to didn't need to know because they would not be qualified to answer the question anyway. They could still give joke answers, and I don't mind that (as long as the serious answers are also given). So, Jack of Oz, you are making a big issue out of nothing here. The question has been answered by multiple experts here and the non experts did have a good time making a few jokes. Count Iblis (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes a kind of sense, but only in a rather perverse way. Enjoy your perverse life. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The self-described devil has expressed his utter contempt for any wikipedia protocol so many times, User:JackofOz, that it make me want to iblis. I knew god and bra were Scandinavian as soon as I saw them juxtaposed--bra comes from the French for brave, ultimately for barbarian. That sense of the word "good" is perfectly logical, if you spend your time defending...trolls. This is the English wikipedia, and it's bad faith to assume a knowledge of Scandinavian, and then to argue at length as if those who don't understand it are at fault. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you more than once what this was all about. It should be clear that here at Wikipedia the protocols and rules are there to allow Admins and Arbs to implement an Apartheid system. Their favorite editors like you and JackofOz will always get away with making insults, only if you grossly violate the rules will there be a mild slap on the wrist (e.g. when you were editing comments at ITN/C because you didn't like the arguments made that a shooting in the US with a few causalties is not newsworthy, you were not instantly blocked, you were discussed at AN/I but there was no consensus for a block, it was only when you continued with that behavior after being told by many Admins that this is not acceptable that there was just a short block).

In contrast, I and a few others have faced a totally different treatment. Here we're talking about good mannered model editors who got persecuted because other editors with an attitude like you wanted to impose their will on us, they used underhand communications with powerful Admins and ArbCom to get their way. And this is not something of the past, a recent incident here where I was blocked for quite long time because I made a comment about euthanasia that was wrongly interpreted, clearly points to the same issues being relevant today. Count Iblis (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My difficulty in applying good faith to anything you say is what you say abut yourself and your attitude to Wikipedia on your own home page. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But then there is no need to speculate about intentions if you just let the discussion evolve. If I have doubts about some person X, I can just keep those doubts to myself, if there is really a problem that will manifest itself eventually and people can refer to the manifestly clear problems. It's the second guessing before anything has happend that is often the cause of problems. It's simlar to how Saddam's WMD was seen to be such a threat. Once that was seen to be a problem, the lack of evidence for the WMD was interpreted as "Saddam hiding his WMD" which became an additional argument for the war. Similarly, I don't think I could have done anything differently in the past that would have helped. Had I taken a different attitude, I would have left Wikipedia for the same reason as User:Likebox. But I did decide to stay despite being subject to the same problem, but that means accepting that the ArbCom system is defective. But none of that is of much relevance in practice here on the Ref Desk. Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, it comes down to this: If you ask questions or make statements here on the English Wikipedia Reference Desk in a language other than English, you'll usually find someone who understands, and indicates that by responding - briefly - in the same language. But does that mean you can conduct a whole 25-post thread in non-English? No, it doesn't. No more than you and someone else can hijack a meeting by having a cross-table conversation in Turkish when nobody else in the room speaks or understands Turkish. That is basic good manners. Similarly, if you ask cryptic questions the meaning of which only certain cognoscenti are expected to get and the rest can go to hell, the rest are going to feel somewhat miffed. That is basic human psychology. These are not ways to foster a collegiate spirit. The preceding conversation could all have been avoided if you had indicated, in your original question, that the words "god" and "bra" were Norwegian words. That would have been the transparent thing to do. Questions posted here are open for all comers, not just for the special friends of the poster. If you don't like having to do business with the great unwashed, find a website that will cater to your special requirements. I, for one, hope you stay around, but a bit of an attitude tweak might be required. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish, there is a some difference in meaning between god and bra, but I feel it is mainly an issue that some words are associated with god and some with bra (and seemingly, the usage differs from Swedish and Norwegian). For me, in general 'bra' relates more to functionality and 'god' more to intentions. For example, the difference between 'en bra man' and 'en god man' is that 'god man' (apart from the usage of the term as a caretaker...) implies a person of good moral standards and good intentions. A 'bra man' might be good in the sense of morals or ethics, but might also be 'good' in the sense of being the apt person for a task (that might be highly immoral). --Soman (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is strange though that there would be such a big diff[e]rence between an adjective and an ad[verb] in Norwegian." Look no further than good and well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]