Language desk
< December 6	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 8 >

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.

December 7

Which Songs Are These?

Moved to Humanities. 惑乱分からん 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to know how to say this phrase in Choctaw

Good day,

We are trying to say this phrase in the Choctaw language:

"Good morining, friend. See you later."

Please reply back if you can with the answer as to how to say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.15 (talk • contribs)

cherokee language

i am looking for the symbols in the cherokee language to represent the word Dad or Father or both if there is any?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.216.78 (talk • contribs)

According to [1], father in Cherokee is "e-`do-`da". And if you look at Image:Cherokee Syllabary.png you can see what the symbols for e, do, and da are. I can't guarantee that's correct, but it's a pretty good guess. Nohat 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

translation help?

I have a friend on my messenger list that has sent me 2 things in which I do not understand the language. Is there a translation somewhere I can be connected to so that I can figure out what they are saying? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.164.194 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Probably. What language? And what things?--Shantavira 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the questioner is saying that they don't know which language the 'things' are written in. If that is the case, finding appropriate translating software might be difficult. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could read list of writing systems. What kind of things are you talking about? Do you know from which area of the world they come? From which time period? Could you upload scans on the Internet? 惑乱分からん 14:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would really advize you to give us a few sentences, or a scan or something. There are quite a few languages being represented here. :) It's very likely someone will be able to help you here.Evilbu 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also check out Omniglot. If you find out which language it is, you could possibly copy/paste the sentence into an online translator (if you have the energy). 惑乱分からん 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native speakers

Hi there, native speakers are warmly welcome to check the translation of the article about Lothar Wolleh. Many thanks! regards, --84.163.50.148 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation request

"Normannica feritate inaudunt." This is actually the end of a very long sentence from the GND (M12), but I cannot find an equivalent to "Normannica" in the English translation, and I'm wondering if it refers to the Normans/Norse, or something else. Thanks. 128.187.0.165 10:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it comes from the source you indicate, surely it must refer simply to the Normans? 'They invade with Norman (perhaps Viking) ferocity.' (I presume inaudunt is a typo for invadunt.) Maid Marion 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Normans, rather Normandy (province). -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian or ??

A post-WWII memorial monument in Zagreb has a depiction of the Ten Commandments with the following spelled out:

VI NE UBIJ
VIII NE KRADI

My questions: (a) is this Serbo-Croatian? (b) does the text mean mean: "Thou shalt not kill/murder" and "Thou shalt not steal" ?

-- Thanks, Deborahjay 11:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) Yes. But as it's found in Zagreb, somebody will claim that the language is Croatian. Btw, the Serbian version would be the same.

b) Yes.

Thanks! As it's in Latin letters, it wouldn't be Serbian, right? And do I understand from your response, that the correct identification of the language is Serbo-Croatian and referring to it Croatian is a political call -- or the reverse?!? -- Deborahjay 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED FINDING: From what I just read on the Differences between standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian page, the splitting of the Serbo-Croatian language into three official languages ( Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian) occurred after the breakup of Yugoslavia. Evidence I have (and to be verified) points to the monument's having existed before that time, so I'll stick with S-C. Deborahjay 13:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian language is written with both Latin and Cyrilic letters. Personally I never use Cyrilic script unless forced to do so (I even sign my name in Latin script). And its pretty strange to see any website written in Serbian language to be in Cyrilic script. Shinhan 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Third party'

From a police statement: "At this stage it does not appear there was any third party involvement in the incident." The incident was a sad case of someone falling to his death from a third floor window. But why do they use the phrase "third party"? If foul play had taken place there would have been two parties, not three. I know that "third party" has a specific meaning in insurance - the first party is the insured, the second is the insurer and the third is whoever else gets involved. But in this case the use of the phrase is surely incorrect. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the term third party was used because this is a (potential) insurance case. Then again, maybe the police qualifies as the second party in this instance. (?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.65.129.85 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It seems that the phrase was used incorrectly. It should have been a second party or another party, not a third party. -THB 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Third party", as defined by Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate, means "a person other than the principals". Its meaning is idiomatic, and has been more or less shorn of any direct connection to the actual numbers involved. So it wasn't used incorrectly, though perhaps its use might have been avoided just so no one was puzzled. -Nunh-huh 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be idiomatic, but its use here rings of the pseudo-exact manner that the police and other public officials often adopt in front of the press, in which instead of someone getting out of a car an individual exits a vehicle.--Rallette 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping "on" in sentences

Hello! I've noticed certain newspaper reports that go like this: "The Prime Minister ~~Tuesday~~ announced Tuesday..." instead of "The Prime Minister on Tuesday announced...". Was wondering which was correct, and why it is justifiable to skip the "on" in the first example. Thanks so much for the reply. Cheers!--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think omitting the 'on' is American style (except that it would probably read "announced Tuesday" rather than "Tuesday announced"), and keeping it is British style. As a Brit myself, I would say that the latter is correct and that it is never justifiable to omit the 'on' :-) --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"announced Tuesday" does indeed sound better than "Tuesday announced". 惑乱分からん 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was indeed "announced Tuesday". Thanks, you guys! Being from a commonwealth nation, I guess I should stick to the Brit style. Just why did the Americans have to reinvent English? :( --thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't; neither the British nor Americans of the 21st Century speak English like they did in the 17th Century.--Prosfilaes 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, if you think the Americans mangled English, I have to wonder what you think of Geordie.

This type of shift in usage is pervasive at all times in all languages. Commonwealth English changes constantly just as much as American does. It's just the way it is. There are far larger differences between dialects in England alone than between high register BBC English and high register "newscaster" American. Heck, there might well be larger differences between different neighbourhoods in London than across the Atlantic. --Diderot 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways American English is more conservative (i.e. closer to 17th-century common English) than is British English. Marco polo 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's really one major way: /r/ in the syllable coda. Otherwise both dialects aren't much more divergent from each other. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most noticeable way, but certainly not the only one. Tesseran 10:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit like the dropping of "the" in sentences like "American starlet Paris Hilton was found bludgeoned to death today". Not so long ago it would have been "The American starlet Paris Hilton was found bludgeoned to death today". JackofOz 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't such "variations" typical of journalism? In Italian, my language, there are lots of them and they are unused in common speaking (unless you want to appear as sort of reading television news :-)). The original question refers to newspapers reports and I'm under the impression the answers ignore that fact. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually completely different from that. In the case at hand, the word Tuesday has shifted from functioning as a noun to an adverb. In the Paris Hilton example, you have two completely different syntactic sentence structures. In the case with the, the phraseParis Hilton acts as an appositive phrase to the subject The American starlet. In the case without the, the phrase American starlet acts as a kind of personal title adjectival phrase modifying the subject Paris Hilton. It's not just a question of dropping the word "the" but completely changing the syntactic structure of the sentence. Nohat 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was learning journalism, I was taught that on is used to separate two terms that are ambiguously juxtaposed. For example, "The Prime Minister announced Tuesday ..." could mean that the person who is Prime Minister stood up and shouted the word "TUESDAY!" Whereas "The Prime Minister Tuesday announced ..." could refer to a Prime Minister whose name is Tuesday. (Wasn't the son of King Friday XIII in The Neighborhood of Make-Believe named Prince Tuesday? Maybe when he grew up, he joined his father's staff???) Anyway, I was never too certain about that rule, but that's what they taught us. — Michael J 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's where Tuesday Weld got the idea for her name from. Just on the "the" thing: "American starlet" is not a title in the sense that "President" is a title in "President Bush". Maybe the syntactic structure got changed as a by-product of an abuse of journalistic licence, and it can now be described formally in the way you have done, Nohat. But I'm certain that the journos who started dropping "the" from these sorts of examples didn't do so on the basis which you outlined. JackofOz 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "st" in German , in words like "ist" en bist"

Hello,

As far as I know, the "st" in German does not sound like "st" in English. "Stark" and "strong" don't start with the same sound. It's hard to describe, but I'd say it usually sounds like "sh"+"t".

But what about "du bist" and "er ist"? Do I just have to say to "s" and "t" like in English? I'd say yes, but then what exactly is the rule? Thanks, Evilbu 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on German, but I think it's generally just as simple as initial vs. medial/final position. 惑乱分からん 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree - say 'sht' if it's at the beginning of a word or syllable, otherwise 'st'. There are probably some exceptions, but I'm not an expert on German either. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are essentially two important exceptions: (1) in compound words, "st" at the beginning of a part is still pronounced "sh-t", e.g. bestehen, Verstand; (2) "st" at the beginning of foreign words which are still felt as such is pronounced "s-t", e.g. Stil, Struktur. The latter point depends a bit on regional preferences and education.--80.136.173.216 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have described the rules for the standard language, but I would point out that in some southern dialects, "st" is pronounced "sht" even in medial and final positions. Marco polo 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and in some northern dialects, the St in words such as Stein and Strand are pronounced "st" (and not "sht"). ---Sluzzelin 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same dialects, that also are Low German-like in other aspects? 惑乱分からん 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It used to exist in Hamburgisch anyway, which is indeed a Northern Low Saxon variety. I remember Helmut Schmidt pronouncing it this way in his speeches, but I have to admit that most younger people seem to have abandoned it, and pronounce it sht- nowadays. ---Sluzzelin 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'sp' has the same thing happening word-initially. Probably related to a similar historical change in the language. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High German sound shift? I think it's valid for all instances, where it isn't explicitly marked as sch, (schn*, schl*, schm*), i.e. st, sp... 惑乱分からん 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help

what is the defittion of monotonous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.149.124 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Repetitive, boring. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nah, not exactly. From the latin (which you can probably break down without knowing the language) it means one (mono) tone (tona-), so it basically means that something is the same over and over, it doesn't necessarily repeat as much as it just never stops. A teacher's voice can be monotonous, also. That means that their voice never goes up or down, just the same tone. Think Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?" That's monotonous. Make sense?

You also might want to check out the wiktionary wiktionary definition for monotonous. Wiktionary is a great resource if you want to know the definition for a word, and don't want to use one of those boring online dictionaries.

Hope that helps! -Laurə n^whisper 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those answers are correct. --LakeHMM 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A multitude of grammar issues

"There is/are a multitude of ways"? Thanks--132.194.13.115 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it would be is. we don't look at the preposition(and the OP) multitude is singular so it should be is. --70.187.163.141 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like number, multitude is a fuzzy quantifier, and in most cases probably takes a plural verb. See [2]. Nohat 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd go for "are," as in, "There are a lot of ways." --Kjoonlee 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 December 7

Contents