Language desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 5 >

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.

May 4

Does this sentence convey my message?

"James argued that the first step to reforming our legislative is not to require aspiring congressional candidates to finish advanced degrees, but to prohibit political turncaotism, which catalyzes nepotism and political dynasties."

Do you think the part “is not to require” somehow sounds as if it is obligatory on our part not to require aspiring candidates to finish advanced degrees? Or does the sentence convey my message that reads something like this - we don’t need politicians with advanced degrees to change our legislative, what we need to do is to abolish the culture of turncoatism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.249.71 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That part of it seems fine to me. I find "legislative" as a noun very strange - I presume it is intended to mean "legislature". Is "turncoatism" a term already in use in the discourse? Because it is unfamiliar to me. I can sort of guess what it means, except that I have no idea why it should catalyse nepotims and political dynasties, so maybe I've got it wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a danger that "not to require.." will, as you suggest, set a false trail (see garden path sentence) that isn't resolved until you get to "but..", forcing the reader to retrace the sentence to re-parse it. As well as the problems with "legislative" and "turncoatism" that Colin points out, the whole sentence is rather heavy on jargon, which tends to obscure the meaning. Come to think of it, I presume the idea is that the sense is "we should prohibit turncoatism [whatever that is] because it catalyzes nepotism etc", but your sentence could almost equally be read to mean that it's the prohibition that does the catalyzing. I would suggest breaking up the sentence and using shorter and simpler words. (On the other hand, for some academic writing this kind of polysyllabic jargon seems to be more or less mandatory, so know your audience.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the sentence. I wonder if this sounds better than the first: "James argued that prohibiting political dynasties is a more promising solution to nepotism than requiring candidates to obtain advanced degrees." What do you think?

To resolve the problems with the least change, I might make it: ... the first step ..., rather than ..., is to ... —Tamfang (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic question: German School of Beirut

What is the Arabic in the deal on this page? It's for Deutsche Schule Beirut.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

المدرسة الألمانیة - بیروت Omidinist (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De nada

"De nada" means "you're welcome" in Spanish. Why? Does the "nada" mean nothing? Does the "de" mean "of"? Or perhaps, the two words separately are meaningless by themselves but are given meaning when placed next to each other? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing. Think nothing of it. It doesn't literally mean "you're welcome", it's simply the common, idiomatic way to respond to "gracias". Actually it makes more literal sense than "you're welcome" as a reply to "thank you". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German, Italian and Russian respond "please": Bitte, prego, пожалуйста. French, Slovak, and Rusyn also say "(it was) nothing". Most of these are short set phrases from a longer implied sentence. The German Bitte literally means, "I plead". Obviously this is short for something like "I beg you not to mention it." The isiZulu wamukelekile literally means, "it is acceptable". The de nada construction would seem to mean "It is a matter of nothing" although looking for an etymological source for this is difficult.

μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that French also has the same construction as Spanish, with "de rien" literally meaning "of nothing". —Akrabbim^talk 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another (more?) common French response is Il n'y a pas de quoi which, now that I think about it, is hard to parse literally; the sense is clearly "there is nothing from which [to thank me]", but would a cook confronted with an empty larder say Il n'y a pas de quoi faire le repas? I've used my French so little in recent years, I'm not sure. —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In less formal settings, the French also say "pas de problème", literally "not of problem", or more properly "not a problem". It's a bit more slang than "de rien" which is a pretty unmarked choice, or "il n'y a pas de quoi" which is a more formal register. --Jayron 32 11:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, in French "de" is not only a preposition ("of"), it is also an article ("some"). "Pas de problème" litterally means "not some problem", and yes, more properly means "not a problem". Akseli9 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang, you're correct all the way. "Il n'y a pas de quoi" (and its short version "pas de quoi") is more common than "de rien". And yes, a cook would also say exactly that, in the case you mention. Akseli9 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, you're correct that "pas de quoi" is more formal than "de rien", but it is still the common normal way. The most formal, the one that really sounds formal, is "je vous en prie" or "je t'en prie". Akseli9 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "je vous en prie", although formal, is one of the most common responses. Another thing that I've noticed recently is "c'est moi", short for "c'est moi qui vous remercie". Itsmejudith (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before we imported "You're welcome" from North America, the usual English reply to "thank you" was "not at all", or sometimes "don't mention it". --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard por nada in the same usage. In American English, at least, "no problem" seerms more and more the be replacing "you're welcome", and while I don't much care for that usage, I must admit it's closer to the idea conveyed by de nada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russians also often say ничего (literally, nothing) in response to certain questions. "Как дела?" (How are things?) Ничего (Not bad, OK, all right). Or even in response to "Спасибо" (Thank you), where ничего means "Don't mention it. Think nothing of it. You're welcome" etc. They also use it as an adjective: Она ничего девушка, literally "She is a nothing girl" (a good one for Medeis, a nobody person), but idiomatically meaning she is quite pretty, without being a stunner. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be thinking of не за что? Ничего is when someone apologizes Asmrulz (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Asmrulz (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, не за что means, in the context of an apology, "there's nothing to apologise for", or in the context of unexpected or effusive thanks, "there's nothing to thank me for". But ничего can be used in those situations as well. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese version of this is simply nada.

You: Muito obrigada.

Respondent: Nada. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of the abbreviations 'ag' or 'a/g' (for "acting")

Some of you will have seen or even participated in the thread headed Judges with 'Ag' after name at the Humanities desk. If not, I'd suggest you read that thread first.

One of the solutions proffered (by me) is that 'Ag' (or 'A/g') is an abbreviation of the word "acting". (While that abbreviation definitely exists, we've so far failed to confirm this is what it means in that particular case.)

The question I'd like the Language desk to focus on is: What is the history of this abbreviation? And are there any other abbreviations that include the first and last letters of the source word but nothing from the middle? Some of the Humanities people seemed to think this one derived from some Latin word or words. True? And if so, what?

As background, it seems to be virtually unknown in the UK, USA and New Zealand. It's mainly found in Australia, Kenya, Mauritius, Belize and the Caribbean. I don't know about Canada, India, South Africa or other parts of Africa.

The forms I've come across include (all with upper case A where appropriate):

ag
ag.
a/g
a/g.

What is the purpose of the slash (/) in the latter 2 variants? Is it subtly (or not so subtly) different from the slashless form?

I turned up a few hits in my searches (see links at Humanities thread) but it's a tricky thing to search for, and it may require the specialised knowledge I feel confident some of my dear colleagues have.

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[This permanent link to the discussion on the Humanities desk can be helpful after both discussions have been archived.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Well, one question is easy: there are lots and lots of abbreviations that include only the first and last letters of the source word. For example, "ft.", "Ft.", "Pt.", "PA" (or traditional "Pa."), "ct.", and possibly "vs." depending on which one of the S's that is. However, I have never seen this done with the G from an -ing ending, which is why I think a Latin origin (from some inflection of agens) may be at least as likely, depending on what field the abbreviation originated in. --174.88.134.161 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC), punctuation copyedited later.[reply]

With regard to other abbreviation formed of the first and last letters, St(.) for Saint comes immediately to mind, as does Mr(.) for Mister. I'm sure there are a number of other English examples (Sr. and Jr. came to mind while I was typing this). Deor (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Can also be 'street', and we know this refers to the final 't' and not the one immediately after the 's' by analogy with 'Rd.'. 'Ave.' (for 'avenue') is strange in that includes the second letter of the word, and, like street, ends with a letter which is also the next letter in the sequence following the , making it hard to tell which 'e' is being represented. $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 06:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take part on the original thread, but I wondered if ag meant "representing the attorney general" in the commonwealth, equivalent to representing the crown in the UK - see Calder v British Columbia (AG) and this from the East Afrian Court of Justice. Mikenorton (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Calder v. British Columbia (AG), the AG means the Attorney-General of British Columbia. It's a different situation from the use of Ag. after a name. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make sense, since the Judge does not represent the state, instead the judge is impartial. The attorney general, by definition, represents the interest of the state in the dispute. Judges are supposed to represent neither party. FWIW, I'm pretty sure the "ag" abbreviation for "acting": comes from the Latin, "agere", meaning "to act" or "to do" or "to make happen". See [1] and [2]. --Jayron 32 13:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a law academic, and I would agree that Ag. in this context means acting. The Latin derivation is interesting; I just assumed it was English. I've never seen it written as A/g, though. I also have two related questions:

It's customary to indicate a judge's name thus: "Smith J.", the J. meaning "Justice" and no doubt derived from the Latin version of the same. Why is it appended to the end of the name and not the front?
If referring to more than one judge, it is usually written thus: "Smith and Jones JJ.". Why is the abbreviation doubled to indicate a plural form? One sees this in other contexts too – for example, LL.B. (Legum baccalaureus: bachelor of laws).

— SMUconlaw (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double letters for plurals abbreviations, I believe, derives from Latin practice as well; in Spanish that's the standard way to indicate plurals, for example " Estados Unidos" (Spanish for United States) is abbreviated EE. UU., as explained here, which also indicates the doubling derives from Latin. We see other similar uses, for example, with "pp." standing for "pages" --Jayron 32 15:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a reason for the practice developing in Latin? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym#Representing_plurals_and_possessives has some brief reference to this, but no real explanation. Wiktionary [3] reminded me of pianissimo, and more softness is indicated with more 'p's, e.g. ppp ~ pianississimo. Music notation does that with f~forte="loud", ff~fortissimo="louder". If you look through enough sheet music, you'll see almost as many pp...pp or ff...ff as you like. Anyway, I found plenty of mention of the Latin custom, but explanation. Then again, customs often don't have much explanation, other than "accident of history". SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]