Language desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

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.

June 30

Polish translation (~ 1880)

I found the term "trakcie bitym" in a Polish dictionary from the end of the 19th century (Mieczyn wieś w powiecie włoszczowskim, gminie i parafii Krasocin, leży przy trakcie bitym z Włoszczowy do Kielc.). Translation yields "beaten road". How should it be translated? Is it "pavement-covered road" ? Thx for any help. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK found it. Case closed. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

implying something by saying its opposite

There's a word (and we have a good Wikipedia article about it, I just don't remember the word) for when you imply something by stating the opposite. E.g. saying "My opponent has never been convicted of murder" insinuates that the opponent was at least suspected of murder. Anyone know the word? I think it goes back to classical rhetoric but I'm not sure of that. Thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irony. But it's a bit more complicated than that. Read the article. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give isn't the same as the Q in the title, for which an example would be "He's a real genius, isn't he ?", said satirically. Innuendo is a better match for implying something without actually saying it, as in your example. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying one thing but implying the opposite comes under irony. But you probably wouldn't think of that as a term from classical rhetoric. There's lots of other devices that can achieve similar goals, and use related concepts. Apophasis is also relevant to saying something by not saying it. Depending on the context, litotes could also be involved. Then there's the general notion of the Unsaid. We also have a nice Glossary_of_rhetorical_terms - for almost any real-world statement, it can be categorized as deploying many different rhetorical devices, and classification of such is always a bit ambiguous and subjective. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of the above posts. I was answering the "imply something by stating the opposite" question. Myrvin (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm. According to B. Bousfield (in Marina Lambrou and Peter Stockwell, Contemporary Stylistics, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010, p. 213), sarcasm is:

The use of strategies which, on the surface appear to be appropriate to the situation, but are meant to be taken as meaning the opposite in terms of face management. That is, the utterance which appears, on the surface, to maintain or enhance the face of the recipient actually attacks and damages the face of the recipient. ... sarcasm is an insincere form of politeness which is used to offend one's interlocutor.

HOOTmag (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's saying a nice or neutral thing while actually being nasty. It's not necessarily meaning the opposite thing. There are hours of argument about this in Talk for irony and sarcasm. A bit later, your quote says, "For Leech this effect is caused by the phenomenon of irony, as it is irony which enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite." Like I said, it's not simple. Myrvin (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible !! How can you claim - the utterance the quote discusses - is "not necessarily meaning the opposite thing", while the quote does explicitly discuss utterances which: "are meant to be taken as meaning the opposite..."? HOOTmag (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related, the old Leon Trotsky joke.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gem, BB. Yes... "meanings that change with inflection." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Apophasis is the article whose title I couldn't remember. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would certainly never say that this whole thread was a complete waste of time. Nor that you are very probably a mischievous sockpuppet of a very well-known encyclopedia founder. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! My high school Latin teacher (who taught me the concept) would be proud of me. He made it seem as though the technique was very common in the debates and accusations surrounding the First_Catilinarian_conspiracy. I'll mark this as resolved. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

WRT "irony": It's ironic that "it's ironic" is so widely misused these days. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that brings this discusison to a full stop. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Try changing water into good wine. Those almost 13464 not superfluous occurrences of "ironically" just waiting getting translated into their much heavier equivalent "paradoxically".--Askedonty (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quite a few. Can we get an irony-bot for that job? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one. Got a license ? --Askedonty (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sentences grammatically correct in English? (participial adjective)

It is an error of table can't be displayed.
It is an error of table couldn't be displayed. (could)

Because I think "of" is a preposition which should be followed by a noun rather than a clause ("table can't be displayed")

I wonder if changing it from "can" to "could" resolves the grammar issue.

Other examples of participial adjective I found:

Boring teachers make bored students. (boring, bored)
A book written in English. (written)

But I could't find participial adjective examples for auxiliary verbs (can, will, shall, may, etc.). Do such examples exist?

-- Justin545 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that "It is an error THAT the table can't be displayed"? Myrvin (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... what would you do if you have to add "of" into the sentence? -- Justin545 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It is an error of the programmer that the table ...."?? Maybe, even "It is an error of the table that it can't be displayed." But that doesn't seem idiomatic. "The table is in error because it can't ..." would be better. Myrvin (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It is an error of the table that it can't be displayed." - I like the answer, as least it looks correct. -- Justin545 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's grammatically correct but nonsensical ontologically. It's not a table's error that it can't be displayed, it's an error on the part of someone or something else. There can be an error in a table but I don't think a table can make errors. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it looks like you are correct too. The meaning is kind of different indeed. -- Justin545 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a stretch there could be an "error of a table" if it some sort of reference. "We were expecting a train to arrive at 1:00pm, but that was only because of an error of the timetable".

Participle adjectives are possible (like in your last sentences), but auxiliary verbs (except for: "is", "do", "have", "dare") - don't have the participle form. Additionally, your first sentences about the "table" are wrong (I couldn't understand them either). HOOTmag (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "could" is the past participle form of "can" ... am I wrong? -- Justin545 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Could" is not a Participle form, it's a Past form. "Can", and "cant", have no Participle form. However, "can" = "is able to", and "can't" = "is unable to", while "is unable" has an adjective "unable", so you can say: "it is an error of [a] table unable to be displayed". HOOTmag (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have searched more harder for a reliable source. Now I realize "could" is just a past form, thanks! As for the "unable" version, I think the equivalence makes sense to get out of the "could". It turns out aux. verbs have some bizarre properties. -- Justin545 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended meaning? Is it (1) to say that the inability to display constitutes an error? Or is it (2) that the nature of the acknowledged error is inability to display? --catslash (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I don't understand the question well ... -- Justin545 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin's first answer ("It is an error THAT the table can't be displayed"), means: "You already know that the table can't be displayed, but I need to tell you that this is a problem". I don't think that is what you want to say. More likely you want to say "You already know that there is a problem, but I need to tell you that the problem is that the table can't be displayed". Is that right? --catslash (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This sentence was due to some programming bug got fixed and posted on a bugtracker web page to inform everybody that it has been fixed. -- Justin545 (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 'of' with participles, the OED has "There was one child of the marriage". "it was an affair of generations", "The old bluesmen, their black faces engraved with the sorrows of ages." 'Of' is a very complicated word. Myrvin (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes errors have specific names and error codes. Maybe you're looking for something like

It is the error of "table can't be displayed"

As far as I can tell my example is grammatical, but it might be more clear if the "of" was just removed. Putting the name of the error in quotes turns it into a grammatical mention rather than a grammatical use, see use-mention distinction. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the exact meaning ... it would be better if the punctuation marks could be vocally represented. -- Justin545 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can vocally represent quotation marks. Perhaps not unambiguously, but people do it. Try a little pause before the quoted part, and change tone a bit. Almost like you're speaking in italics :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like that SM. It is the same as "'Table can't be displayed' is the error message." But I think the questioner wants an "of" somewhere. Myrvin (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "of" is needlessly wordy. "It is the 'table can't be displayed' error" works best (if you're avoiding contractions). Can't accidentally imply it's the table's fault. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the OP's question has been resolved. I turns out, the OP was not looking for a "participle adjective" - but rather for an "adjective" only (like in their example "boring teachers"). Anyways, they have indicated (in their response to me above), that my suggestion - of using the " equivalence ['can't' = 'is unable to'], makes sense - to get out of the 'could' " [i.e. to get rid of the 'can't'] - hence to get the correct adjective suggested by me: 'unable', so it seems they accept the final consequence: 'it is an error of [a] table unable to be displayed'. HOOTmag (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We used to live in the automobile world, now we live in the new computer world, where the ones who create and rule and help and fix, don't need to master language as a means for thinking or for common sense... Akseli9 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I wonder who here has ever tried to "master language as a means for thinking". The OP was simply looking for an "adjective of can't", so I tried to do my best to help them find what they were looking for, and I hope I succeeded, that's all. Anyways, I wonder how your comment is related to the whole topic discussed in my response you've referred to. HOOTmag (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]