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

French translation needed

How do you say "welcome back" in french? --The Dark Side 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "Bienvenue de nouveau" if you were welcoming someone a second time to somewhere they've already been. --Señor Purple 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facetiously you could say bienrevenue. —Tamfang 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

In a formal research essay, would I need to footnote paraphrasing from a famous piece of literature such as the Bible or Shakespeare, eg. "Ever since Eve called Adam over for that fateful little snack..."? Thanks --Señor Purple 02:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to source it? Probably not. If you're assuming your readership already knows who Adam and Eve are and what "that fateful little snack" was, you can assume they know where it comes from. —An gr 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic or muslim tanslation of Will (William)

I have a friend named Will,who is going to Saudi Arabia,what would his name be pronounced as in their language? <email removed> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.16.28.243 (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Probably "Will".... Unless you want some sort of equivalent of the name Will in their culture.. 213.48.15.234 11:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslim" means: belonging or pertaining to the religion of Islam. Asking for the muslim translation of "Will" is like asking for the Protestant translation of "Ali". All phonemes used in the English pronunciation of the name "Will" are found in the standard pronunciation of the Arabic language and are pronounced more or less like in English, so it will sound very similar, in fact more so than when your friend is addressed in France or Germany. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weel.--Kirby♥time 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese record cover

I have got a record (a 7" single) from Japan. Here are scans of the front and back covers. Can anyone tell me the name of the band and the titles of the two songs? Bonus kudos if you recognise the band or know anything about them! Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google translates the title 裏切りの街角 as Street corner of betrayal and this source gives the band's name as 甲斐バンド (Kai Bando), which means "Worth Band" (other translations, next to "worth", given by Jim Breen's kanji server being: "effect"; "result"; "use"; "avail"). We have an article Kai (band), but that is not this group. There is a website www.kaibando.com, claiming to be "Kai Bando - Official Site", but "This site is currently inactive." --Lambiam ^Talk 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here the band name is definitely given as Kai Band. And here they are classified as "Japanese-punk alternative". And, finally, here is a list with "all releases" of the band – but I guess that does not cover singles. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Wikipedia has an article 甲斐バンド. Here is Google's translation. Have fun. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, you're a star. Thanks very much. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

back--not a preposition?

The word "back" functions either as a noun (the back of the car), adjective (the back cover), adverb (please, go back), or verb (The vehicle in front backed into me.).

From what I understand, a phrasal verb (also called a two-word verb) that is made up of a verb plus a preposition and the meaning is idiomatic. Examples are go on means to continue, clamor for means to demand, go over means to review, etc.

Then why is it that the word back is not a preposition, since it is also used with the verb take as in take back meaning to regain?

I am hoping for an elaborate discussion on this.

Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlrichard (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As you can read in our article Phrasal verb, a phrasal verb can be a combination of a verb and preposition, a verb and adverb, or a verb with both an adverb and preposition. The reason that the word "back" is not considered a preposition is that it fails the main criterium. A preposition can be combined with a noun phrase (in the form PREP followed by NP) to form ~~an adverbial clause~~ a prepositional phrase, such as "on the table" or "in my pocket". However, you cannot say: *"The car was parked back the house". --Lambiam ^Talk 23:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you could say "His money was put back in his pocket." Corvus cornix 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but here "back" is not positioned in front of a noun phrase, but in front of a prepositional phrase, namely "in his pocket". Prepositions combine directly with noun phrases. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) English has the preposition behind to use in the phrase The car was parked behind the house. (In Icelandic that would be "Bílnum var lagt bak við húsið". Perhaps the phrase bak við is a preposition but more probably it would be analysed as an adverb (bak) modifying the preposition (við).) I would say that back is an adverb in the phrase His money was put back in his pocket. (it modifies the verb put, and then in his pocket is prepositional phrase. What exactly do you hope go get out of this discussion? Stefán 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that I'm hoping to get anything out of this discussion? It just occured to me that the comment above mine might not be entirely correct and was asking for further input. Why must every comment hope to get something out of the discussion, other than attempting to increase knowledge? And please try to be less abusive in your comments. Corvus cornix 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, pronouns seem to be getting in the way here. The you referred to the original poster, Carlrichard, who said I am hoping for an elaborate discussion on this. and (below this post) I still welcome more answers to my questions. I am just not sure what the result can be. The question posed is why is back not a preposition but I don't see there particular reason for this, it just isn't. Am I missing something? Stefán 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.. You have been very helpful.. I still welcome more answers to my questions. Maybe somebody else has something in mind that s/he wants to share with us. Carlrichard 23:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be a rather free-ranging discussion, I thought that I would raise the case of "in back of". Stefán's example of bak við in Icelandic made me think of this. For example, the phrase "The car was parked behind the house" could be restated "The car was parked in back of the house", which is akin to the Icelandic. I think that "in back of" is a compound preposition in English. Perhaps bak við is similar in Icelandic? Per Compound (linguistics), compound prepositions are a regular feature of English. This seems a clear case of one. Marco polo 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would seem possible to analyse bak við as a single entity, in which case it would be a proposition. There are many adverbs of location which can go with við in a similar manner. Ég stóð framan við bílinn, I stood in front of the car, but that would more commonly be expressed as Ég stóð fyrir framan bílinn. We also have Ég stóð fyrir aftan bílinn for I stood behind the car but then the word bak does not appear. The construction *Ég stóð fyrir bak bílinn does not exist. Stefán 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English has a pair of prepositions 'before' and 'behind', parallel with other spatial prepositions such as 'below', 'beside' and 'beyond'. However, 'before' is also used temporally, and in the spatial sense has now become old-fashioned or forma, and has been replaced by 'in front of'. The same hasn't happened to 'behind' (which is not used temporally), but in North America, the phrase 'in back of' has arisen (as a variant of 'back of', according to the OED). 'In back of' is hardly ever heard in Britain, however. --ColinFine 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did the chicken cross the road?

I was asked with this question. I dont know what to answer. Is this a kind of question that quizzes one's intelligence? What is the answer to that question? Carlrichard 23:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Why did the chicken cross the road? can help you.-Andrew c 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To get to the other side.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 4

Contents