Language desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 19

vox populi vs. voci populi

Resolved

– 03:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a Victor Klemperer quote on Wikiquotes: "[T]here is no vox populi, only voci populi." Presumably, there is a distinction between the two terms, but what I find suggests they are synonymous. What was his intended meaning? — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D4EC:691A:1EDC:835D (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: Could it mean "There is no collective voice of the people, only voices of individual people ?" StuRat (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe; but vise versa might fit better in context (The Language of the Third Reich). P.S.: The Language of the Third Reich should redirect to LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D4EC:691A:1EDC:835D (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mistake in the translated version. I'm not sure how the introduced that mistake; maybe the translator thought "voci" must be the proper plural of "vox". "Voces" is the correct plural ("voci populi" would mean "to the voice of the people" or something similar if we wanted to make any sense of it). I was hoping such a terrible mistake didn't originate with Klemperer: in fact the original German correctly says "Aber es gibt keine vox populi, sondern nur voces populi". That is, there is no single "voice of the people", there are many voices. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D4EC:691A:1EDC:835D (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why might vice versa (which I take to mean swapping the order of the clauses) fit better in context? Are you saying that part of the point of the book is that the voces were suppressed in favor of the artificial vox? —Tamfang (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject of the book was the language of the Third Reich, from the authoritarian perspective: "there are no individual voices, only the voice of the people" (or similar) would make sense. -OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A90E:D475:2878:2440 (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher would be smiling: "... there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denying society is a stronger claim than denying that society has a coherent voice. —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

at vs for

Which of the following sounds better? As far as I can tell both sentences are grammatical and sounds fine; I'm trying to pick the one that's the most natural sounding.

1. Tungsten carbide is excellent at cutting aluminum.

2. Tungsten carbide is excellent for cutting aluminum. Mũeller (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. sounds better to me; at can be somewhat ambiguous. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D4EC:691A:1EDC:835D (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my ears, 1# sounds a bit weird, as if tungsten carbide were a person. You could say "I am good at cutting aluminum", but tungsten carbide is good "for" something, not "at" something. HOTmag (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A tungsten carbide blade is excellent at cutting aluminum" sounds less weird (although not perfect). I wonder if the distinction is less about persons vs. things and more about countable nouns vs. mass nouns? Iapetus (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sábado and Saturday

Saturday is derived from the Latin. It is named after the Roman god. Saturn's day. Sábado is derived from Hebrew, the Sabbath. Why is this the case? Domingo is the Lord's day, Sunday. Were the weekends created because Jews didn't want to work on the Sabbath and Christians didn't want to work on the Lord's day, so Saturday and Sunday were taken as the weekends to honor both religions in Europe? Also, Isaac Newton once wrote a list of sins he did in his youth, and he did a lot of bad things on "Your day", which I interpret to mean the Lord's day. So, in the past, English speakers would use the Lord's day and Sunday interchangeably? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "weekend" is a comparatively recent development, due to the rise of the labor movement in Western countries. A six-day work week, with Sunday off, was the norm until close to the end of the 19th century; see Workweek and weekend. As to "the Lord's day": it's complicated; see the article Sabbath.--Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but that still doesn't address why Saturday was chosen as the additional day off. One reason to choose either Saturday or Monday is to allow for two contiguous days, to allow for travel to visit relatives, etc. Choosing Saturday would permit people to travel to relative's homes and then attend church with them on Sunday. Since church services are often held early on Sunday, with some type of socialization after, like the church social or potluck dinner, that would mean travel home would need to wait until late on Sunday. Allowing Saturday off might also have permitted more time for washing the Sunday Best clothes, making the house presentable for guests, etc.

Antisemitism being strong then, I doubt if giving Jews their Sabbath day off figured in, unless their were Jews who managed to argue for Saturday using the reasons I listed above. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During the 19th century, there was a somewhat common practice of a 5½-day work week, with a half-day of labor on Saturdays (that's basically what "a voluntary arrangement between factory owners and workers allowing Saturday afternoon off from 2pm in agreement that staff would be available for work sober and refreshed on Monday morning" on the Workweek and weekend article means). Probably the 5-day workweek developed from the 5½-day work week... AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was fairly convinced that giving Saturday afternoon off was to allow workers to watch professional football (soccer) matches and avoid having to hold them on a Sunday, but I can't find a reference for that. BTW, my father, an instrument maker, was still working 5½-day weeks at his factory in Essex in the 1960s. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for a long listing of week-day names in various languages, showing which names in which languages are "planetary", "ordinal" (numeric) etc., see the appendices to Mapping Time: The Calendar and its History by E.G. Richards. AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above it is stated that the 5 1/2 day work week was common in the 19th century, but I was told by US workers at a large company that they too had to work Saturday mornings in the 1930's. The 19th century and early 20th century demand by labor unions for the "40 hour work week" was more a demand to get 48 or at least 44 hours pay for 40 hours work. If it took 44 or 48 hours to get the cars built or the electrical system maintained, then the company could pay time and a half for the extra hours. So in fact many workers have to put in the equivalent of a six day week, getting overtime pat if they are in the union or are junior management workers, and getting nothing if they are senior salaried workers. There is sometimes the promise of "comp time" for senior salaried workers, good luck finding slack times in which it can be taken. Edison (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, was not the initial demand for an 8 hour day? 'Eight to work. Eight to sleep. Eight for the worker.' That naturally adds up to a forty-hour week, a forty-eight-hour week, or a fifty-six-hour week. In the late 19th century US, the average (stress average) was slightly more than 60 hours over six days (farm and non farm)[1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Insanitary" vs "unsanitary"

One of my early offerings to the great Wikipedia project was a humble article called SS Navemar. Now somebody with nothing better to do has changed "insanitary" to "unsanitary". Should I revert it? Any thoughts? Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both are correct [2]. --Thomprod (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Revert: an article about a British subject, originally written in British English, should retain insanitary, the British version of American unsanitary. Those two links in the reversion summary should suffice as an explanation. Bazza (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This same question was asked a year ago. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Insanitary" sounds very wrong to my Detroit ears. If "unsanitary" sounds equally wrong to British ears, then I would agree that they should stick with "insanitary", since it's a British subject. However, if both sound good in British English, I suggest using the word that works in both. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my made-in-the-USA eyes, I tend to read "insanitary" as "insane -itary". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A90E:D475:2878:2440 (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC) | modified:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5560:5BBD:5A94:28E2 (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity and sanitation are related words. Mens sana in corpore sano. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikt:insanitary and the big OED. I've changed the article back to the regular British spelling. Dbfirs 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I hadn't realised that there was an EngVar split. I'm not sure that it's a particularly British subject, a Spanish ship which carries European Jewish refugees to America, but the article certainly was written in British English ab initio. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

It would be unsane to change it away from the British version in a British-related article. Edison (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that this was settled without anyone becoming incivil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so unefficient. Some arguments are almost uncomprehinsible. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indoubtably and undubitedly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A growing flood of prefixes. We're being inundated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be unindated? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]