Language desk
< November 4	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 6 >

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.

November 5

Hebrew words for "god" and "gods"

While on Stack Exchange, I saw this question, and was piqued by some of the responses. While I know from my religious education classes that "Elohim" is used in the singular for "God" in translations of the Bible, I was not as aware of the fact that the plural was apparently supposed to be "Elohim" as well, at least in the Biblical context (e.g. here). However, in the comments, some native Hebrew speakers on the same site argue that the plural is meant to be "Elim", instead of "Elohim"

Why might there be such a discrepancy? I suspect that it might be an issue of a shift in meaning (differences in Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew), but I don't know Hebrew, and so don't know how to check this. Unfortunately, given my lack of Hebrew abilities, I'm also curious about this because of the religious context of some of the appearnaces of the word. --Morningcrow (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing is that there are two words in Hebrew (Biblical and Modern) for deities: el (pl. elim) and eloha (pl. elohim), though only elohim is used also in the singular sense; elim always refers to gods multiple gods. Modern Hebrew thus usually uses the unambiguous elim when referring to multiple gods. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add some details to Hasirpad's explanations see Names of God in Judaism#El and the three sections below (Elah, Eloah, Elohim). As an aside: people commonly believe there is a connection between the Arabic word Allah and the Hebrew words El or Elah. But that is not correct. The connection is actually with Eloah: Allah is a contraction of Al-Ilah and Ilah is the exact cognate of Eloah. Nitpicking note: strictly speaking it's Eloah not Eloha. The 'a' is a 'patah gnuva' before a 'he' with 'mappiq'. In carefully printed or written Hebrew Bibles that patah is written between the 'lamed' and 'he' (which as I said carries a mappiq). Nowadays, when vocalization is used at all (which is not very often) the patah is most often written squarely below the 'he' which may give rise to the incorrect pronunciation 'eloha' Contact Basemetal here 03:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction; I am aware of the patah genuva but in my haste I used the common Ashkenazi (mis)pronunciation instead. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes don't we?

It is indeed more correct to write 'genuva' as you did than 'gnuva' as I did, as this is a shva na. Now pronuncing the word as if it started with two consonants (gn..) is very common I think in Israel and elsewhere, for this and other words which start with a consonant with a shva (which is always na at the beginning of a word) but this is not strictly correct. Besides this introduces syllables starting in two consonants in Hebrew where historically (as for all Semitic languages) such syllables were unknown. That happened also in vernacular modern Arabic dialects which is more surprising as Arabic doesn't have a shva na and so no half-way house. (The sukun being the equivalent of the shva nah). Traditionally, of course, given the non existence of CC.. syllables, no Arabic word started with a consonant with a sukun. Contact Basemetal here 04:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the word "Elah" is not in Hebrew (but rather in Aramaic), and that's why it only appears in the Aramaic texts (of the bible). 77.126.87.25 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. You're absolutely right. Thanks. What was I thinking. Note Aramaic Elah (contrary to what's stated in WP) ends in a he with mappiq just like Eloah. No patah genuva here though. Keeping in mind it is Aramaic, not Hebrew (and I don't know if the phonological rules for Biblical Aramaic are the same as for Biblical Hebrew) in Hebrew there's never a patah genuva after a qamats. I suspect Aramaic Elah is a cognate of Hebrew Eloah and thus, contrary to what I stated, is related, not to Allah, but to the Ilah part of Allah (which as I said is a contraction of Al-Ilah). Here too WP is not very precise and maybe even a little bit wrong (it does say "related to Allah", in a way yes, but not the whole word, only part of it) and it doesn't state the relation to Hebrew Eloah. Furthermore it makes a connection with El which I'm not sure about. If you know Biblical Aramaic maybe you can answer these questions. Contact Basemetal here 12:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for your queations: Yes, the phonological rules for Biblical Aramaic are the same as for Biblical Hebrew. Yes, the Aramaic Elah is a cognate of Hebrew Eloah. Yes, El has no connection with Eloah, nor with Elah, nor with Allah. 77.126.87.25 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English modestly revised spelling – looking for a souce

Some fifty years ago I read a Penguin paperback, I think with a story by Shaw, typeset in a just slightly modified spelling. With just a few new letters like – if I remember well – mirrored ɔ or ǝ it was well readable, just looked a bit strange. I cannot find anything about this particular spelling initiative. The Savian alphabet is much too extreme. Anybody knows or remembers? – Fritz@Joern.De and Fritz Jörn (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really help but here are two links you might find useful: The Shaw Society and The English Spelling Society. Besides there are the references and the links in the WP articles that cover English spelling reforms and/or Bernard Shaw and this article on English spelling reform at RationalWiki which you may use for the references. But if I may suggest a change of methodology I would first try to identify that short story by Shaw. If around 1964 it was typeset the way you say it must still be printed in the same way. (You may ask the Shaw Society). It will then be easier to point to the precise flavor of revised English spelling you have in mind. It will also be a way to check if your recollections from 50 years ago are accurate. I'm sure you have an excellent memory but 50 years is a long time. Contact Basemetal here 09:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Initial Teaching Alphabet and UNIFON had some degree of prominence in the 1960s, but they don't seem to match your description, and neither was connected with Shaw... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ἐῶ

ἐῶ is contraction of εἰμί ("μεμνημένος σαφῶς ἐῶ")? Which dialect? where can I find a table for this contraction?

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#ἐῶ (ancient greek)

--132.64.30.220 (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what I already stated at the other desk where I suggested it is a subjunctive: I don't think this can be an indicative (and thus a contraction of an indicative; beside how can you ever expect a form such as εἰμί to contract to ἐῶ? this would be phonetically absurd) because if this is middle perfect of the verb μιμνήσκω (attic: μεμνημένος ὦ) then the middle perfect indicative has its own independent form, not a (periphrastic? is that the word?) combination of the middle perfect participle and the verb εἰμί (unless of course in some dialects that is the case). Also the results I gave you from Perseus did not give any indicative. If this is from Menander (you didn't answer; see 5th line of this page) then it seems I am more or less right (see 4th line of the English translation: "I well remember"; σαφῶς of course means clearly) although my recollections of Greek syntax are too faint to remember what use of the subjunctive this would be in a principal clause. To summarize: I reiterate that to me this is not a contraction, it is a dialectal form of the subjunctive. The question that puzzles me still though is why Menander would have used an Ionian form? Is the character that speaks this line supposed to be from somewhere Ionian was spoken? Does the New Comedy make characters speak in their own dialect? I thought we had some competent Hellenists here. Where are they all gone? Contact Basemetal here 11:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So when the time come, the boy must die?

This quote is from Severus Snape in the last Harry Potter movie. Could someone explain the grammar of the when-clause? It's apparently not present indicative, maybe subjunctive? I'm familiar with the subjunctive in Romance languages, but I'm not sure if/why it's used here. Does it have anything to do with the "must" in the main clause? --2.246.8.156 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be subjunctive, but while it could be argued that it's technically correct, it seems pedantic. I don't think I've ever encountered anybody using the subjunctive in a construction like that before. Could be a hypercorrection. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think hypercorrection means that it's a mistake, but I assume they would pay attention to that in such expensive movies. Also consider that it was a quite tragic scene and the sentence was pronounced very clearly and even repeated. Did this bother any native speakers? --2.246.8.156 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to go back to the source material, and see if he said it that way in the book also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't. It's only in the film that the "s" is missed off. Dbfirs 19:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what little I know about the Harry Potter stuff, I'm fairly certain this wouldn't apply, but FWIW, this construction (as a variation of "...when the time comes...", not as subjunctive) is perfectly normal in the dialect/sociolect where I was raised (Southern/Appalachian American English), I've also heard it in African American Vernacular English.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a subjunctive: that would be "come the time ...". J. K. Rowling used the correct version, of course, in the original book. I don't know whether Warner Brothers re-wrote the sentence, or whether Alan Rickman just missed off the "s". Dbfirs 22:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Come the time" is perfectly correct; although, it does strike me as odd. (In my, personal writing style, it would be "when the time do come.")

May this be a translation of a similar clause in Latin? Unlike in English—with its niggardly three noun cases—Latin-writers remained free to jumble the word order in their sentences almost limitlessly, provided that case and number have remained unambiguous (which didn't always happen—e.g. maria, depending on the context, meant either `the seas` or `the sea's`).

But, in modern English, I seriously doubt that an author could get away with writing "become known the truth," instead of "truth become known."

Pine (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin construction being the ablative absolute, its use here with "so and when" would be incorrect. Rather, it would have to be something like, "The time being come, must the boy die?" μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, neat!

I don't believe that I have ever encountered that particular construction, before.

I'll just note, however, that (on the linked page) all of the examples constitute completed actions. The premise of the OP's Harry Potter quote, though, clearly indicates that the time hasn't actually come yet.

Out of curiosity, Medeis, can you provide an example of an inchoate ablative absolutive?

Pine (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of this before I took Latin and Greek, I just didn't know what it was called. See Absolute construction which will have links to different variations in different languages. With English not having an ablative case, we usually use a "with him verbing" or "with him about to verb" (these could be inchoate depending on the sense of the verb) or "with him having verbed" construction. "With the time having come, must we kill him?" is probably the most idiomatic way, but one could still get away with "The appointed hour being come, must we truly kill him?" μηδείς (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Are there different Wikipedia groups to join? I ask because I cannot bring myself to abide by the guidelines I have read here for placement of periods and commas with quotation marks. I am going to put my periods and commas inside quotation marks when I deem they belong there, not according to the examples I just read within this site.

I realize this is a global project. Does that explain your choices?

Thank you.

Editor's Daughter Austin, TX

If you've absorbed so much about punctuation, then you probably already know that there are different customs around the Anglosphere, and we are indeed a global project. What matters more than the "right" or "wrong" way do punctuate is that our treatment is consistent, this is why we have manual of style. Do you have a problem with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style? If you want to quote something in an article, it's fine to write e.g. "according to SemanticMantis, 'some people take punctuation style too seriously.'" -- WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we encourage you to do so. However, you also don't own the content you contribute any more, and you can't complain too much if someone else changes your punctuation to conform to our style guide. A more appropriate place to discuss the content of the style guide would be at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But before you start your argument, read some from those who came before. If you don't bring something new to the table, you're likely doomed to a long and fruitless wall of text. Sometimes it's better to let the majority disagree with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure what you what you mean by "different Wikipedia groups." We have projects, here at WP, like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Punctuation and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style. There are also many other sites that use wikimedia software, but most of them are not directly affiliated with wikipedia. These can be called "wikis", but they are not "Wikipedia," e.g. Wikia.com or conservapedia.com or wookiepedia.com or bulbapedia.com. You can also edit at other wikis and encyclopedias, but Wikipedia doesn't care much what you might do there :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am an American professional editor, and I much prefer Wikipedia's style on punctuation around quotation marks to the prevailing American style. The American style creates ambiguity. When a comma or a period appears inside quotes in an American publication, you never know whether the comma or period was part of the cited text. Wikipedia's style eliminates that ambiguity. For that reason, I follow the Wikipedia (and British) style in my own writing. Marco polo (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also our policy WP:ENGVAR, which mandates that each of our 4 million-plus articles is written in one and only one variety of English, be that American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian or what have you. Consistency of dialect extends to punctuation styles, and I know there are many, many articles written using the punctuation you like (and which I and some others detest). If I'm editing such an article, I'll bite the bullet and write "defense" rather than "defence" etc etc, ~~and enclose commas inside quotes.~~ But I expect the same respect from Americans who edit articles in BrEng, AustEng etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the MOS guidance on quotation applies regardless of ENGVAR; see MOS:LQ. There was an RfC some time ago to allow articles in American English to use typesetter's quotation and articles in British English to use logical quotation (which I supported) but it did not succeed. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that correction. I've struck out the untrue parts of my post. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LQ is one of the most frequently challenged rules on Wikipedia, but it is a standing rule. Off the top of my head, I'd say it happens ballpark of once a year. The most recent RfC (probably the one to which Peter C refers) was very well attended but unfortunately highly biased. It was written by an editor who jumped the line while the rest of us were trying to work out a compromise text. The state of the matter is to use British English in all cases, even in articles in which it is otherwise incorrect.

There are many reasons to change this rule: ENGVAR is already a proven policy. WP:LQ already has low compliance. Despite that low compliance, no one's ever reported a single error on Wikipedia that can be attributed to the use of American punctuation. No one's ever demonstrated that either style makes any difference in reading comprehension in the kind of writing that we do here. Using professional-level punctuation would inspire more confidence in Wikipedia. Treating no variety of English as if it were superior or inferior to the other is more in keeping with Wikipedia's spirit and mission.

I regret that you are mistaken, Jack. ENGVAR should apply to punctuation and I'd support expanding it to punctuation, but right now, it doesn't apply to punctuation.

No the American style does not create ambiguity Marco Polo. If I want to know how "Song Title". was originally punctuated, I have to check the original text, exactly as if it were written "Song Title." It's okay to have a personal preference for British style, but you should own up to your reasons.

As for what you should do, Editor's Daughter from Austin, it is unlikely anyone will come after you if you use American English punctuation in American English articles, but be advised that it can happen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just try writing "He was 6 feet (183 centimeters) tall." in an American article and see how many minutes manage to pass before it becomes "He was 183 centimetres [sic] (72.04 inches) tall.". You might also read the respect accorded Benjamin Franklin as representative to the British government before we declared independence. Unless UKIP gets its way, in 52 years King Georges VII will be celebrating 500 of Norman rule. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: 1. Would you please clarify your example? If it's an American article, they shouldn't be writing "centimetres" in any case. Also, are the quotation marks are supposed to be yours or part of an example. Are you trying to say that you've seen American punctuation associated with errors in subsequent editing or just trying to say that people often ignore established varieties? 2. Can you point to a case of that actually happening? Not happening in someone's imagination or hypothetically, but actually causing an error in subsequent editing? (This is not rhetorical; you sound like you might actually have seen something, I'm just not clear on what it was.)

I'm familiar with Benjamin Franklin's travels. What does it have to do with punctuation? The current British style dates from 1906, long after Franklin's time. I am not, however, familiar with the United Kingdom Independence Party's position on punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer the British system of punctuation. I have seem meters changed to metres dozens of times with the insistence that "they are different things", but that's just silly post-facto rationalization. No, I do not keep count of such changes, and can't think of any recent examples. But I have seen the original spelling "mile" in a quote subjected to conversion within a verbatim quote and I have seen dozens of articles where a set of round measures like "a 30-40 foot whale" have been changed to a "9.1-12.2 metre (30-40 feet) whale." Clearly, in such cases the round foot measures are original and should have been kept. Knowing all the common measures, from millimeter to mile is simple competence in English.

Franklin, as a voice opposed to disunion, was sent by the Continental Congress to negotiate redress to American complaints before 1776. He was subject to such abuse and insults and calls for his arrest for treason there that he came home a staunch advocate of the absolute necessity of revolution. We still get the same abuse and disrespect in terms of spelling and vocabulary, even though we host the site and number half its users. This is off topic, so I shan't let you bait me further. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You're talking about ENGVAR issues in general and not American punctuation in particular. I get it now.

I'd have to agree with the point that the ban of American punctuation is insulting. That's a big part of the problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to feel insulted. Wikipedia has simply chosen the less ambiguous method. Nothing insulting about that. As an American editor, I do not feel insulted. Consider the following example: Business letters usually conclude with the closing phrase "Sincerely". If we use American punctuation, we have to write Business letters usually conclude with the closing phrase "Sincerely." This creates the erroneously impression that a period should follow the word sincerely at the end of a business letter. With British punctuation, however, there is no ambiguity or error. Marco polo (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco, the example you've used isn't ambiguous. The period is understood to be part of the quotation process. The only person who'd think the period was part of the phrase was someone who was still learning how to read. No one is making the claim that the period is part of the word "Sincerely."

It's like if I said, "We should ban British spelling because people will think that 'center' is pronounced 'sen-treh.'" "Centre" looks like it would confuse people, but I have never known anyone who wasn't a schoolchild ever actually get confused (and when they did it was easily corrected). Was British English making an erroneous claim that "centre" is pronounced "sen treh"? No.

You want to change my mind? Show me a non-hypothetical, non-imaginary case of anything like this ever actually happening on Wikipedia. It's been about 150 years! The absence of evidence is deafening.

On top of that, American punctuation is easier to teach, easier to learn, and easier to copy-edit, the last of which is an advantage on Wikipedia, where different users edit and re-edit each other's contributions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course centre isn't ambiguous. It's French. Who's that Briton who insists the world is run by frog-people, and the Queen is one of them?μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Windsor isn't a frog, she's a leafy vegetable. And technically speaking, she's my employer. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the dish in her honour would be cabbage stuffed with frog's legs, sauteed in olive oil, and served with a side of chips? A sort of hulupki françaises avec pommes frites à la grèque? That actually doesn't sound bad. Unfortunately our head of state doesn't employ anyone. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]