Language desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 25 >

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.

September 24

Words for geographical divisions

I am basically asking for a simple list of words that are used to describe an administrative or geographical division or region of an independent country, part of a country, or just land. Please give as many words as you can think, because I can always look up the subtle meanings in a dictionary. I'm translating a document and I'd like to choose the most suitable words in English. I'll start myself: dominion, province, territory, region, county, shire, district. --Pxos (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prefecture, department, commune, hundred, wapentake, riding, parish, rape, soke, liberty, borough (and burgh), municipality, lathe, vill, honour, manor. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "List of terms for administrative divisions".—Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acreage, area, block, lot, megalopolis, metroplex, metropolis, neighborhood, plot. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet, Gore, precinct, Ward, diocese, Hide, Tenth Quarter, Plantation, census division... --Jayron32 02:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See List of medieval land terms - Nunh-huh 05:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State (I can't believe no one said that already), country, canton and half-canton, quarter, emirate, governorate, township (with various meanings), regional municipality, oblast, raion or rayon, republic, autonomous republic, autonomous region, autonomous district, special administrative region. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A U.S. state is not a province of the United States. The states are sovereign entities that have joined with the United States. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United States are not the only states. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the IP 65.94.51.64 specifically linked to U.S. state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is 2014, not 1788. The U.S. states stopped being sovereign entities for all practical purposes when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. They are correctly described as "administrative subdivisions"; see for example the U.S. page in the CIA World Factbook (with the "Government" section expanded). And anyway, as Duncan indicates, the specific example is irrelevant; other countries also use "state", notably India. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to link to other definitions of "state". The IP linked to US state but covered it with "state" which was misleading. And in fact the US states do still have a significant amount of sovereignty, despite erosion of "states' rights" via various constitutional amendments and court decisions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP gave the OP what the OP asked for. A US state is "an administrative or geographical division or region of an independent country, part of a country, or just land". Sovereignty has multiple definitions, none relevant to the original question. jnestorius^(talk) 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have happened in 1787, but the news didn't fully sink in until 1865. —Tamfang (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all the words! I was looking for words that could be somewhat recognizable to the modern reader but still indicate that the concepts are historical. So I'll go along the lines of "shire, hundred, parish, hamlet, etc.". Thanks also for the links to the lists. --Pxos (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Table of administrative divisions by country. To the answers above me. It doesn't matter how they're called, they are still the same. A US state is the equivalent of a French region, a German federal state or a Chinese province. --2.245.138.126 (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there food terms for all the races?

I know that a "banana" is someone who looks "[East] Asian" but acts "white"; an "egg" is someone who looks "white" but acts "[East] Asian"; an "Oreo" is someone who looks "black" but acts "white". Okay, what about white people who act black? What are they called? How about white people who act "Near Eastern"? Or white people who act like those indigenous peoples from the Americas? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See wigger. --Jayron32 03:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wigger is a food term? Not sure asking for that at the drivethru would end in a good result. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could call them all chowderheads, just for being confused. I doubt there's a food term for each. White people are (allegedly) crackers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But a cracker isn't someone who is acting like some other stereotype which seems to be integral to the OP's question. See Cracker (pejorative). Dismas|^(talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And not that kind of cracker in any case - Eron^Talk 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a white person is trying to act like another race, she's still a cracker through other people's eyes. If a couple of green kids try to act white, they'll be crackers in their own minds. Whether it's more offensive to call a black guy who thinks he's white by a white slur or a black one is anyone's guess. But no, it's not directly related to the confusion aspect, just the white person (real or imagined). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll be able to find terms for all of them that are known throughout whatever geographic area you're looking in. For instance, I've never heard "banana" used in this way and doubt I will any time soon since there are very few East Asians living in my geographical region. That said, I would say that Urban Dictionary will be your friend here. Dismas|^(talk) 03:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in a part of the world where monkeys are food, per "Monkey see, monkey do", a mimic can be called one of those. Also one of the "Big Three" animal insults (pig, monkey, dog), which can be used for virtually any sort of racism. A dog can also be taught tricks, like how to spell like a gangsta, and some people eat those. If you ever see a pig parroting you, you're probably dreaming. To "ape" something is to copy it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually this is just called "cultural appropriation" when white people do it. I don't know if there is a "food" term for white people acting like indigenous Native Americans, although that is a phenomenon that happens all the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Indians who "act white" have sometimes been called "apples", i.e. red on the outside, white on the inside. Offhand I can't even think of a common food that's white on the outside and red on the inside. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Red velvet cake with white frosting" will never make it as a derogatory term for a wanna-be Indian, I'm afraid. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep are red inside, and have a tendency to follow. The Algonquin word for them is shepsog, same as a cheese made from mixed sheep milk and cow milk. The people who made it also won awards for their Red Vask. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of French words by sound?

What is the English meaning of these unrelated French words or phrases?

In French it sounds like "A ton" as in "A ton of bricks."

In French it sounds like "Mirage" but with "Noir" at the beginning - sounds like "Noir-age." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EF:73A0:1A5:8F6D:CF7F:63A1 (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1/ May be Atone = lifeless, atonic, unstressed or Étonne[nt] = [I, he, she, it, they] surprise[s], amaze[s], astonish[es].

2/ May be Orage with the linking consonnant "n" (Un orage) = A storm. — AldoSyrt (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one could be "attend(s)", "wait"..,although it wouldn't have an N as strong as "a ton". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to identify individual French words second hand like this without context. Spoken french has a lot of elision and the like, French also has a unique phonological phenomenon known as "liaison" that changes the sounds of individual words in specific contexts. The classic example of liaison is the phrase "mes amis"; in normal contexts, "mes" is pronounced a bit like the English word "May" (but less diphthong), and "amis" is pronounced "ah-me". In "mes" the final "s" sound is dropped, most French words drop the final -consonant sound. HOWEVER, when before a vowel-initial sound word, it comes back, but in a strange way. "mes amis" is pronounced more like "may-zah-me" with the liaised "s" attached to the first syllable of "amis". This can make identifying the sounds of individual words difficult for non-French speakers, as they may include incorrect initial sounds from liaison. --Jayron32 10:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even small French kids get these wrong, it is often that you hear a 4 year old say "Les navions", because they think the noun for airplane is "navion", since they hear often "un avion". --Lgriot (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be a small French kid to get these wrong. Historically even French grown ups were prone to such things: for example the French word "lierre" meaning "ivy" comes from "l'hierre" (from "la hierre" with elision; "hierre" from Lat. "hedera"): the article was wrongly incorporated into the word. Besides the gender was changed from f. to m. so now it's "le lierre". Contact Basemetal here 22:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinist and Reformed

Is there a difference? What is the difference? The former is a follower of Calvin, while the latter is a follower of his teachings? 140.254.226.203 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're completely different sets of letters. But otherwise, the terms are functionally equivalent with regard to Christianity. Reformed Church redirects to Calvinism. Not every Calvinist denomination uses the word "Reformed" in their formal name, but some do (for example Dutch Reformed Church). But if something is described as Reformed Christianity, it almost always means Calvinist. --Jayron32 14:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Jayron said, the terms are usually interchangeable. However, note that the Reformed branch of Christianity includes Zwinglianism. This was historically a movement distinct from Calvinism, even though the two had a lot in common. Around 1550 AD Calvin and Zwingli's successor Bullinger reached a theological consensus, effectively uniting the Calvinist (mostly French-speaking) and Zwinglian (mostly German-speaking) churches. The Swiss Reformed Church is firmly based in the Zwinglian tradition, but is confessionally very much in line with Calvinist churches elsewhere. It could however be considered anachronistic to describe the Swiss churches as 'Calvinist', especially considering that they are older than Calvinism. - Lindert (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add confusion, at the Coronation of a British monarch, the new king or queen swears to "uphold the Protestant Reformed religion", meaning in this case, Anglicanism, which is not Calvinist. Note that many Anglicans would dispute this description of themselves, as there are many strands of "churchmanship" within Anglicanism ranging from Methodist through to Anglo-Catholic; however, in its broadest sense, a Reformed church is one that has had a Reformation, that is to say, a break with the Roman Catholic Church. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism as a whole may not be Calvinist in practice, but confessionally the Church of England is. The Thirty-Nine Articles are the only confessional statement officially recognized by the Church of England, and those clearly teach Calvinist doctrine (total depravity, unconditional election etc.). - Lindert (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the concept of Apostolic succession, which Anglicans espouse, wouldn't be acceptable to any paid-up Calvinist. Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which some Anglicans espouse. Between the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England has recognised a wide range of (helpfully contradictory) views on such piffling matters as theology and core beliefs, allowing Anglicans to hold a wide range of views as Anglican. 86.136.125.63 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Those influenced by the Oxford Movement hold the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer in especially low esteem. I think you'd struggle to find any Anglicans who think of themselves as Calvinists. The foundation of the Church of England was influenced by the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but even in the early days, there was no direct alignment with either camp. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting the article in descriptions in German

In his book, Petro Tyschtschenko states:

Meine Mutter war Österreicherin.

Now I understand this is grammatically correct, even though it doesn't say eine Österreicherin. But why? And to what nouns does it apply? I understand one cannot say *Meine Mutter war Frau. But can one say, for example, Meine Mutter war Polizistin? (Note that this is just an example. I have met Petro Tyschtschenko but not his parents, who most likely died before I even met him. I don't know whether his mother actually was a policewoman.) JIP | Talk 18:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The indefinite article is usually omitted before nouns denoting origin and occupation, so Meine Mutter war Österreicherin and Meine Mutter war Polizistin are both grammatically correct, but *Meine Mutter war Frau isn't. However, omission of the indefinite article is not obligatory, so Meine Mutter war eine Österreicherin and Meine Mutter war eine Polizistin are also grammatically correct, though they have slightly different connotations from the versions without the article. (I'm not able to explain the different connotations, unfortunately, but I know they're there.) This is also why Ich bin ein Berliner is correct the way JFK said it; that sentence does not (contrary to the urban legend) necessarily mean "I am a jelly doughnut". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a difference in connotation. For me, "Ich bin Polizistin" stresses the individual property of being a police women. "Ich bin eine Polizistin" stresses belonging to the group of police women. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if one was asked Und Sie, was machen Sie zum Beruf? one would reply Ich bin Polizistin. But one would instead say Ich bin eine Polizistin und deswegen nehme ich Sie fest. Is this correct? JIP | Talk 17:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct, but it would be correct too without article. "eine" just emphasizes that she is one of many. --2.245.96.251 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I found out there is a difference in connotation: Had JFK said Ich bin Berliner, he would have been wrong, as that would have meant he literally lived in Berlin. But by saying Ich bin ein Berliner, he was only figuratively sympathising with the actual Berliners and equating himself with them. JIP | Talk 17:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner" because the "ein" puts more emphasis and thus adds more dramatics to the situation. "Ich bin Berliner" just means you are from Berlin, either that you grew up there or you feel Berlin is your home. You don't have to live in Berlin so does "I'm American" not automatically mean "I live in America". In French and probably other Romance languages, it is uncommon to use the article with occupation/origin because these are general statements. One function of the article is emphasis. It's English which is the odd one out here, needing "a/an" for mentioning their occupation. --2.245.96.251 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as I understand, JFK had no other connotations to Berlin than this political support. He was not born in Berlin, nor was he raised there, and I don't think he actually, literally considered Berlin as his home. I don't know for sure, because I had not been born at the time, but I doubt JFK had even visited Berlin very much before his famous speech. The article very clearly says that by saying ein Berliner JFK was figuratively equating himself with the Berliners, not saying he was actually from Berlin. JIP | Talk 18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the article "ein". We all know JFK was not from Berlin, so either sentence, with or without "ein", would be technically a lie. I'm not questioning that he didn't sympathize with Berlin citizens. I explained the sentence because you said "Ich bin Berliner" (without the article) would've been wrong in Kennedy's case. There is no denotational difference between the two sentences. I hadn't read that article when I wrote that, but the article agrees with me. "ein" is just emphasis. The sentence "I am a person from Berlin" in the article clarifies that "Ich bin ein Berliner" could've also meant Kennedy was a jelly doughnut. It doesn't say that "Ich bin ein Berliner" and "Ich bin Berliner" are different things. --2.245.96.251 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting directly from the article Ich bin ein Berliner:

"However, while the indefinite article ein is omitted when speaking of an individual's profession or residence, it is still necessary when speaking in a figurative sense as Kennedy did. Since the President was not literally from Berlin but only declaring his solidarity with its citizens, "Ich bin ein Berliner" was not only correct, but the only way to express what the President wanted to say. (Reference:Eichhoff, Jürgen (1993). "'Ich bin ein Berliner': A History and Linguistic Clarification". Monatshefte für den deutschen Unterricht, deutsche Sprache und Kultur. 85 (1). Monatshefte.org, University of Wisconsin Press: 71–80. ISSN 0026-9271. {{cite journal}}: External link in |publisher= (help), cited in Erb, Scott (2003). German Foreign Policy: Navigating a New Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. p. 52. ISBN 1-58826-168-9.)"

Notice it says that "Ich bin ein Berliner" was not only correct, but the only way to express what the President wanted to say. I understand this to mean that "Ich bin Berliner" would have been wrong, as it would have meant the president was literally from Berlin. I'm not a native German speaker, so I don't have a steadfast opinion about this, but this is what I understand the article is saying. JIP | Talk 17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The figurative meaning is derived from the dramatic situation and the "ein" added emphasis. Imagine you were standing in front of a crowd and giving a speech. You utter a last exclamation, every word clearly and slowly. Whatever you say, the crowd are with you, they believe you are with them. "Ich bin Berliner" would've been just fine. There is no grammatical rule stating one must use the article to express solidarity, which the book the article refers to claims. It's just the author's interpretation. You can either follow that book or consider the opinion of a native speaker. It's up to you. Note that the misconception of Kennedy being a jelly doughnut is only present in the English-speaking world. Look at the German article Ich bin ein Berliner. There is a section called "Missverständnis im englischsprachigen Raum" which means "misunderstanding in the English-speaking world". It's absolutely no debate among Germans and I myself have never heard it before this discussion. Non-native speakers tend to look for a difference where there is no, since native speakers have a different approach to their own language. As already said the "ein" adds the connotation "one of many". Saying the indefinite article exactly added the meaning "Kennedy was one of many Berlin people" which led to "Kennedy felt with the people of Berlin" and claiming that it's absolutely wrong without the article are merely interpretations. --2.245.249.247 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already know JFK didn't say "I am a jelly doughnut". I was asking whether "Ich bin Berliner" would have been acceptable. Are you saying the source cited in the article (mentioned above) is wrong? JIP | Talk 15:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And all these years I've been thinking that he said "I am a sausage"! Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

There are indeed many types of sausages and other food named after cities or regions like "Thüringer", "Nürnberger" and "Wiener" (Germans call them "Viennese", but Austrians call them "Frankfurter"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.246.23.249 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the jelly doughnut because it's a similar case. Non-native speakers tried to find a difference between "Ich bin Berliner" und "Ich bin ein Berliner", stating the latter meant "I'm a jelly doughnut". Now the source tried to find a difference, claiming "Ich bin Berliner" meant "I am a Berlin citizen" and only "Ich bin ein Berliner" meant "I'm with the people of Berlin". The former sentence would've completely fine in Kennedy's case. It's just a matter of style and interpretation. I doubt there is a grammatical rule in any language saying "to express this feeling, you must use this or that otherwise it's wrong". --2.246.23.249 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian language documents (possibly Hindi?)

Looking for some help with determining salient details of some Commons uploaded documents. I am not sure of the language. The files are File:Vinayakbuva Utturkar Award.TIF, File:Vinayakbuva Utturkar academy award 1.JPG and File:Vinayakbuva Utturkar academy award 2.JPG (I am not displayed them b/c they are possible copyvios). Can anyone give me a rundown of what they are/what they verify and some details to assess copyright (such as apparent date [one says 1980], author [government agency? which one?] and anything else you might think of relevance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language is Kannada, spoken in Karnataka. But I can't tell you anything about the contents. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Posting at WT:INB or contacting someone from here may be more likely to attract attention from a Kannada-speaker. Also pinging @Nvvchar and Rsrikanth05:, who may be able to help. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed Kannada, I can tell you that the document is dated 1980 and was released by the Government of Karnataka. Apart from that my Kannada is too rusty to tell. Pinging @HPN: as well. I'll email him as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "welter" in Welterweight?

"Welter" seems like an obscure and inappropriate word to choose to classify a range of bodyweights. Who chose it, when, and why? Edison (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EO has at least a clue.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, but it's not a proper noun. Lowercase. That's bugged me in a few MMA articles recently (and not recently, and in the future). Even any old welterweight championship is just that. Only the UWA World Welterweight Championship (or similar) are titles. Small mistake. If this was any other desk, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has bugged you in the future, eh? Hmm, pity this isn't the Science desk, Mr Hulk. Pity for you, that is; because in that case I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. But as it is, one must regretfully do one's duty. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Here's a general reference for a general desk. And here's how it has bugged me today. I'll refrain from using the word "proof". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Here's the thing I meant to link and another future event. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

No wait, this is the thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

OED is diffident on the etymology, noting that the word welter refers to a "heavy-weight horseman or pugilist" and suggesting that it derives from the verb welt meaning to beat or thrash, but not making it clear what the link is between thrashing something and something being heavy. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]