Language desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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.

July 19

Greek greeting

Hi, I think I heard a Greek greeting that sounds like BARAK-ALLAH. How is this written in Greek? What's its meaning and origin? 27.115.113.102 (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) I couldn't find it in Greek phrasebook. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Arabic Barak (given name) "blessed" and Allah. It may have an idiomatic or particularly religious meaning, and you may have heard it from a non-Arab. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barakallah (Μπαράκ Αλλάχ, بارك الله). —Stephen (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, Stephen G. Brown, you both are wrong (ridiculously). The word is παρακαλώ.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your manners, Ljuboslov. I simply said what is true, that Barak means "blessed" in Arabic, and that both words the OP reported were Arabic words. I was not in a position to tell the OP what he actually heard or judge the accuracy of his interpretation or judgement of the ethnicity of the people involved. If you know better, you can simply say so, but I expect you wouldn't tell the OP he was ridiculous for mistaking p for b, l for ll and omega for ah. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: You rather do not have to be so grumpy and learn to take criticism. To say someone is wrong is nothing about manners. Didn't you like the word "ridiculously"? But it was such. To imply that Greeks would greet in Arabic, especially with such a rare, clearly Islamic greeting (it is not something like "Salam"), is ridiculous (I think many Greeks even might be seriously offended with such implications). When I first saw the question and then the answer, my first thought was either the OP or the repliers were trolling or joking. Then I realized that the OP might be still serious, and I recognized the part "kala" quite immediately and then the whole word.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April fools? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, the word that the OP heard was most likely παρακαλώ. I remember this word from my textual criticism days. It is the modern variant of παρακαλέω. The root words are παρά and καλέω and it is related to παράκλητος "paraclete". In the new testament it is usually translated as "to exhort, to call for". Modern literal meaning is "I request" but it is used in much the same way as German bitte, meaning "you're welcome" and even when answering the phone. Medeis' and Stephen's answers may have been hasty, but were not "ridiculous" at all; they were likely possibilities considering: 1) the transliteration the OP gave us and 2) words in other European languages with historical Arabic contact such as Spanish ojalá and Portuguese oxalá.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that the OP heard a phrase that included the greek word for "good" at the end, καλά. My greek consists mostly of a few phrases I learned working for a greek family in a pizza joint 25 years ago, but I remember a few phrases. --Jayron 32 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. Yes, I believe what I heard was "παρακαλώ". I heard it over the phone while making a business call to Greece. Because Greek is an unfamiliar language for me (in fact I'm slightly more familiar with Arabic, hence the confusion), it was easy for me to mistake "b" with "p". 27.115.113.102 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. There's also the fact that Mandarin distinguishes aspiration as opposed to voice, and unaspirated consonants are often rendered as voiced consonants in Roman transcription. So it is quite possible that an unaspirated p would be transcribed as a b. 04:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe

While I'm translating Tycho Brahe into other language, I'm frustrated by the following sentence:

“

In return for their support, Tycho's duties included preparing astrological charts and predictions for his patrons on events such as births, weather forecasting, and astrological interpretations of significant astronomical events, such as the supernova of 1572 (sometimes called Tycho's supernova) and the Great Comet of 1577.

”

This is one of my interpretation of the sentence in point form:

“

In return for their support, Tycho's duties included

preparing
1. astrological charts and
2. predictions
for his patrons on events such as births,
weather forecasting, and
astrological interpretations of significant astronomical events, such as
1. the supernova of 1572 (sometimes called Tycho's supernova) and
2. the Great Comet of 1577.

”

I can think of another possible way of interpretation:

“

In return for their support, Tycho's duties included preparing

astrological charts and
predictions

for his patrons on events such as

births,
weather forecasting, and
astrological interpretations of significant astronomical events, such as
1. the supernova of 1572 (sometimes called Tycho's supernova) and
2. the Great Comet of 1577.

”

Can you tell me which one is the intended meaning of the sentence? --Quest for Truth (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. Is the "predictions" here referring to fortune-telling? --Quest for Truth (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation

In return for [his patrons'] support, Tycho's duties included

preparing [his patrons'] astrological charts
1. predictions for his patrons on events
  1. <such as> births
  2. <such as> weather forecasting
astrological interpretations of significant astronomical events
1. <such as> the supernova of 1572 (sometimes called Tycho's supernova)
2. <such as> the Great Comet of 1577.

As to your question, re: predictions, they would (ostensibly) be based on the 'prepared astrological charts'. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8558:6C31:688B:8595 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic question is this: "Tycho's duties included preparing (astrological charts and predictions), weather forecasting, and astrological interpretations." And yes, "predictions" refers to a kind of fortune-telling (预测未来). —Stephen (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'In a nutshell', more like "Tycho's duties included (various) predictions based astrological charts that he prepared for his patrons." --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8558:6C31:688B:8595 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"predictions ... of weather forecasting" would either be a tautology or a fairly silly practice (I predict that tonight's 10 o'clock news will be followed by the weather forecast) so I think your first answer is QED --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first interpretation is quite natural. Astronomy/astrology (not distinct at that time) was used to predict the life of newborn childs and to predict the weather. The other tasks, i.e. the supernovae or comets were believed to be unpredictable at the time. Note that Kepler (one generation after Tycho Brahe) defended the astronomical/astrological weather predictions in his book "Warnung an die Gegner der Astrologie" and that Halley (three generations or so after Tycho Brahe) was the first to discover the predictability of one (periodical) comet. Referring to your second question: in central Europe at that time there would be a great difference between reputable predictions by an imperial astronomer using elaborate mathematical methods like astrological charts and fortune-telling by an old Gypsy woman using the means available to her. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! After reading through the replies from you all, I have more confidence that the first interpretation is the most logical one, even though purely grammatically it is open to multiple interpretations. Actually I'm editing on the Chinese Wikipedia at the moment, and this sentence really caught me because it is rather unnatural to write a sentence in such a complicated structure in the Chinese language. I really need more time to think about the most appropriate way to express the identical meaning clearly yet smoothly in Chinese. --Quest for Truth (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Homicide" in BrEng

According to our article, homicide, it's a very useful word that covers killing another human in so many different scenarios (murder, manslaughter, accident etc).

But in BrEng, I'm fairly sure it only means a death caused by a criminal act. This dicdef seems to support my argument, as does This ref. This ref suggests than even in USEng it means something illegal has happened.

Can anyone clarify? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

posting by banned user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have a difference between the common usage, where it seems to mean murder only, in both US and UK English, and the technical usages. In scientific usage, it seems to have the broadest meaning, of any killing of one human by another (including in war, executions, by accident, euthanasia, etc.), while legal usage seems to vary, but excludes war and legal executions, and may or may not exclude accidents or euthanasia. ~~Generally speaking, if it's legal, it's not called homicide, for legal purposes.~~ StuRat (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, what you say about common usage may be true, but the last bit about legal usage is false. Legal killings are most definitely legally homicide. There is no ambiguity about that at all. --Trovatore (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the last line out, but I still believe the part claiming that the legal definition of homicide excludes war and legal executions is correct. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not correct. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British usage can be canfusing. While there is indeed a concept of homicide as unlawful killing, there is also the concept of justifiable homicide, where there is no crime - this may relate to cases of self defence, or to the use of reasoable force by police which results in a death. The etymology of the word clearly just means the killing of a human being - and there is an extent to which the investigation of any death may be described as a homicide investigation whether or not it leads to a conclusion that the cause of death was some unlawful act. Wymspen (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "homicide investigation", at least in the early stages, may just be an investigation to determine whether or not a homicide has occurred. (In some cases, it's not even clear if a death occurred, say if a person has gone missing and there is some of their blood in their car, but not enough to definitely say they are dead, and no body is ever found). Also beware of the etymological fallacy. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I maybe have some intuition where you're coming from. Don't confuse police usage with legal usage. Police are not lawyers, and they have their own technical language, which may or may not correspond to the language of the law. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the police usage is more likely to be the common one. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jonathan Law, A Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press (8th ed. 2015), which is a British source, "homicide" is defined as "The killing of one human being by another. In English law there is no crime called homicide: what the law does is single out certain homicides that are considered to be unlawful or unjustifiable or inexcusable and make a crime of these. . . . Lawful homicide (sometimes termed justifiable homicide) occurs when somebody uses reasonable force in preventing a crime or arresting an offender, in self-defence or defence of others, or (possibly) in defence of his property, and causes death as a result." This source, which is going to be more authoritative than a general purpose dictionary, seems to make it pretty clear that "homicide" is not limited to criminal deaths in British legal usage. John M Baker (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good source. Now we need a similar example for US law. I'd also like to see an example in British law where a legal execution (back when they had the death penalty), was referred to as a homicide by legal authorities, and where killing of an enemy soldier during normal combat (that is, not the killing of prisoners, those waving a white flag, etc.) was called a homicide by legal authorities. It occurs to me that, since such cases never make it to the courts, there may not be a legal term for them, any more than there is a term for the killing of an intelligent extra-terrestrial. StuRat (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "homicide" in common usage in America implies "illegal homicide". Lawful taking of life is typically described in more specific terms, such as self-defense, execution, warfare, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? I'm having trouble figuring out a context where you would want an imprecise word for "unlawful homicide" where you wouldn't just say "murder". Granted, it's imprecise, in both directions (some unlawful killings are not murder, and you can be legally guilty of felony murder without killing anyone at all). But if you want a precise term, you just say "unlawful homicide". I'm skeptical of this claim. --Trovatore (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manslaughter is unlawful homicide but is not necessarily called murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I said that, more or less. I don't buy that "common usage" needs or has a term for "murder or manslaughter". If you use the word "homicide", it sounds like you're trying to be precise, and if you're going to do that, then you might as well be actually precise and say "unlawful homicide". I don't think your statement about "common usage" is really accurate, though it's more defensible than saying the same thing about legal usage. --Trovatore (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any source where somebody uses the word "homicide" casually to mean killing the enemy in war ? If so, I suspect they are trying to make a point that they consider any such killings to be wrong. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy that casual usage has a well-understood meaning for "homicide". I would say "homicide" is an inherently technical term, not used much in casual discourse for any intended meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The leading American law dictionary is Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). For "homicide" it features this quotation from Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law 204 (1978): "The legal term for killing a man, whether lawfully or unlawfully, is ‘homicide.’ There is no crime of ‘homicide.’ Unlawful homicide at common law comprises the two crimes of murder and manslaughter. Other forms of unlawful homicide have been created by statute: certain new forms of manslaughter (homicide with diminished responsibility, and suicide pacts), infanticide, and causing death by dangerous driving."

Black's uses the definition "criminal homicide" for homicides that are unlawful. It also provides definitions of "justifiable homicide": "1. The killing of another in self-defense when faced with the danger of death or serious bodily injury. — Also termed excusable homicide. See self-defense (1). 2. A killing mandated or permitted by the law, such as execution for a capital crime or killing to prevent a crime or a criminal's escape." John M Baker (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a legal dictionary, that "killing a man" part is inexcusably inaccurate. What about women, children, the unborn embryo/fetus ? And the "killing" part needs clarification, too. Is pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient a "killing", and hence homicide ? StuRat (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary quoted from a 1978 source. I think it's safe to say that back in 1978 the reference to a "man" implied a human being regardless of age or sex. I believe that in Anglo-American legal systems, terminating the life of a fetus is not homicide as the fetus is not regarded as a human being until it has been born alive. The act may, nonetheless, be a separate crime. Similarly, it is widely accepted that a brain dead patient is no longer alive, so turning off a life-support system would not be homicide. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A man", used to include women is more believable than it including children. Can you find any source that says it was used that way in 1978 ? StuRat (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries do not necessarily dictate common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

posting by banned user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but we still haven't found any law dictionaries that specifically deal with legal executions and soldiers killing the enemy during war. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Black's Law Dictionary, quoted above, addresses legal executions. Here's a court case that also addresses killings during war: "Homicide may be lawful or unlawful; it is lawful when done in lawful war upon an enemy in battle; it is lawful when done by an officer in the execution of justice upon a criminal, pursuant to a proper warrant." Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. 295, 303 (1850). John M Baker (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]