Language desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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 29

Pre-war German paper - 2

The following is part of an original German text:-

"Wenn nun auch im Fall beliebig geformter Elektroden die (in Wirklichkeit vorhandenen) Anfangsgeschwindigkeiten sicher u. U. eine bedeutend größere Rolle spielen, aus bei symmetrischen Elektroden, so ist doch demnach der Langmuirsche Satz in der angegebenen Form rich ig."

Which I think translates as something like:

"Now, if in the case of arbitrarily shaped electrodes (of practical use) the initial velocities ???? play a significantly greater role than in the case of symmetrical electrodes, Langmuir's claim in the given form is therefore yet compelling ."

This translation doesn't actually make much sense in the context. It makes more sense (at least to me) if the word "initial" is replaced by the word "peripheral".

What does the abbreviation "u. U." mean?

What is the correct transliteration of the words "rich" in the original German, noting that the German for "Form rich" (wealthy) is "Bilden reich"? 120.145.161.132 (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"u. U." is "unter Umständen" (under certain circumstances), and the last part "rich ig" is missing a letter, it should be "richtig" (right, correct).

Otherwise your translation is not far off. Using mostly your wording, with some corrections, I would re-arrange the whole sentence to make it clearer: "Even though the (in reality existing) initial velocities under certain circumstances certainly play a significantly greater role for arbitrarily shaped electrodes than for symmetrical electrodes, the Langmuirsche Satz is therefore still correct as given."

--Tokikake (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. Thanks. 120.145.161.132 (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does this word mean?

I see four instances of 'vide' in this document. http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/communications/circular/order-under-section-119-for-return-26-09-2014.pdf what does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.196.32 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means "see" in Latin, (definition, and is used to mean the same thing as "See also" or "re:" in other contexts. It refers the reader to other text or documents which elaborate on the material which precedes it. --Jayron 32 16:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Latin phrases (V). It means "see" (literally) or "refer to". Vide wikt:vide#Latin.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What has an imperative verb got to do in those four instances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.196.32 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your question. The word means: "look at this". For example, when it says "Vide Notification No. 33/2014 dated 25th July, 2014", it is telling you to refer to the document "Notification No. 33/2014 dated 25th July, 2014" Every other use of "vide" is preceding some other document (notifications, orders, etc.) that you, the reader of this document, are supposed to refer to. --Jayron 32 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the use of the word mangle the grammar in those sentences? The word means 'see'. Can you replace those 'vide's with see and still make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.196.32 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely you can. "See Notification No. 33/2014 dated 25th July, 2014" is perfectly grammatical English. --Jayron 32 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's even still imperative. shoy (reactions) 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be grammatical as long as it is an imperative sentence with no main clause attached to it. What about the full sentence from the document? "*See* Notification No. 33/2014 dated 25th July, 2014, the forms for filing tax audit report have been revised." OR "The High Court of Bombay disposed of writ petition No.2492 of 2014 *see* order dated 25.09.2014 and directed the Board to look into the practical difficulties of the petitioners and take a just and proper decision in this matter." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.185.2 (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name-dropping without any names

Is there a word for the following behaviour: "Yesterday I had lunch with a senior vice president of a large company, and he said that the local economy is..." "I talked with a close friend of mine, who is a Director of Medicine at a major hospital, and he said that the common cold normally lasts...". Appealing to famous people without naming them. --Pxos (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a form of Argument from authority aka "appeal to authority". --LarryMac | Talk 19:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As" vs. "as if"

In one Andy Capp strip, Andy Capp and his wife Flo are returning home from a darts competition. Andy says to Flo: "I said 'Play as you've never played before', not 'Play as if you've never played before'." Now I understand the strip's meaning and all that, but I still have to wonder about the details of English grammar. What, exactly, is the exact grammatical difference? Don't bother explaining the strip to me. I already understand it. I'm interested in the exact grammatical details. JIP | Talk 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the difference between "as" used as a conjunction meaning "in the same way that; according to what", that is a "real" comparison, versus "as if" meaning as though; in a manner suggesting; in mimicry of, suggesting an unreal equation. Wiktionary suggests kuten for the former and ~~kään kuin~~ ikään kuin or niin kuin for the latter, but I can't claim to understand the subtleties (or non-subtleties) of Finnish. Nevertheless, the examples I found seem to corroborate this distinction. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "ikään kuin", not "kään kuin". But anyway, I understand your explanation. Andy Capp meant Flo should have played in a way she had never played before, not played suggesting she had never ever played at all before. JIP | Talk 21:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did, sorry (at least the link worked, but something (a letter) got lost in translation :-). Yes, that's what I meant! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Play as you've never played before' means he's exhorting her to play in an extraordinary way that will win the game, whereas 'Play as if you've never played before' means he's telling her to play incompetently, as a novice would. If he said the latter, it could be interpreted as instructing her to throw the game. The distinction is therefore that the phrases have opposite meanings. Akld guy (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JIP explained that he already understood that, and wanted an analysis of the grammar, not of the meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regular English (well, the way I would say it, anyway), he would have said "Play like you've never played before". Adam Bishop (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/like-versus-as.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JIP may well have understood the meaning, although his first language is probably not English and he did not expressly say he understood the difference, only that he understood the meaning of the strip, whatever that might mean. In any case, there may be readers here who do not comprehend the subtleties of the English language. Don't deny them the right to learn. If only one person learned the difference between the two phrases, it was worth it. Akld guy (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, at least, "Play like you've never played before." is ambiguous, and can mean either "Play as you've never played before." or "Play as if you've never played before.". Bazza (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second usage would only make sense if the player was being asked to help throw the match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or if the player was asked to sandbag. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close kin to point shaving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ÖBB

When I was at the World Bodypainting Festival this July, I heard someone speaking in German and mentioning ÖBB, the national railways of Austria, as /Ø: be: be:/, with the sound of "Ö" as /Ø/, not as "O umlaut". Nevertheless, unlike my native Finnish, where the letter "Ö" is utterly separate and not interchangeable with the letter "O", I have understood that in German, it's not so much a separate letter than an inflected form of the letter "O". So do German native speakers pronounce the letter as /Ø/ or as "O umlaut"? JIP | Talk 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See and hear Das deutsche Alphabet-Lied (German Alphabet Song) (1:39) on YouTube. —Wavelength (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resident of Austria here. I don't know what /Ø/ sounds like, but I can confirm that it is spoken as O umlaut. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP meant how initialisms containing umlauts are pronounced. I never heard anyone say O-umlaut BB for ÖBB, O-umlaut PNV for ÖPNV etc, they say ÖBB, ÖPNV. Same is true of when you spell ordinary (non-abbreviation) words containing umlauts e.g. over the phone. I don't quite get the bit about interchangeability. Umlauts are never interchangeable with the respective base letter ("Gaste" instead of "Gäste" guests is always wrong), but they may be substituted with AE/OE/UE if technical limitations require it. Also, umlauts can variously be sorted with the base letter (i.e. ignoring the döts), as AE/OE/UE, as distinct letters after the base letter, or as distinct letters at the end (after Z), whereas all other diacritics are always ignored and sorted with the base letter. Asmrulz (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The German Ö has two pronunciations: [ø] (closed) or [œ] (open). I understand that the Finnish ö is always pronounced [œ] (open). You might stumble upon the fact that in the full word "Österreich" the Ö is open, whereas in the abbreviation "ÖBB" it is closed. A German Ö that stands alone is pronounced [ø] (closed). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Österreich pronounced with a short/open /œ/? I've only ever known it with a closed /ø:/. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. wikt:en:Österreich has an /øː/ and the speakers pronounce it that way (except me). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Österreich pronounced with an [œ] to be Swiss or some other Alemannic dialect.

In abbreviatons, this seems more usual, still I would use [ø] in any case. --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum for the original poster (already partially stated above): In German, both [ø] (closed) and [œ] (open) are allophones of O-umlaut, not two different letters as in Finnish. If you've learned that O-umlaut is always pronounced the open way, that was actually wrong. --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]