Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 October 27
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 26 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 28 > |
| 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. |
October 27
editThe Scottish Play
editIn the name MacBeth, is the stress on the "Mac" (son of) or the Beth as it would be if McBeth? LShecut2nd 01:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- In England, I have only ever heard MacBeth (for instance, in George MacBeth) pronounced in the same way as McBeth. I suspect some people might give the 'a' a short 'a' sound, instead of a schwa. In any event, the stress is on the second syllable. Xn4 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the stress in on the second syllable. There is no difference in pronunciation between equivalent names with Mc and Mac in Scotland, as far as I am aware, and I can't think of any names where the stress falls on the prefix, with the possible exception in both cases of Mackay and its variants. Koolbreez 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- McElroy is [ˈmæklɹɔɪ], McIntosh/MacIntosh/Macintosh are all [ˈmækɪntɑʃ], [-tɒʃ], and McIntyre/MacIntyre/Mackintyre are all [ˈmækntaɪɹ]. —Angr 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- What about MacHinery? --Milkbreath 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Or what about MacH? :) -- JackofOz 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- An exotic addition - the French had a family of MacMahon which gave them one of their presidents and by then had turned the name into Mac-Mahon, with a stress on the Mac. Xn4 02:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well there you go, I stand corrected. I thought I might :) 84.9.166.127 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- An exotic addition - the French had a family of MacMahon which gave them one of their presidents and by then had turned the name into Mac-Mahon, with a stress on the Mac. Xn4 02:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Or what about MacH? :) -- JackofOz 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- What about MacHinery? --Milkbreath 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
latin phrase
editWhat does this mean: "actus confusos inconfuse"? Omidinist 06:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what it means, but I think there is a verb form missing of which actus confusos is the direct object. If the verb form means "to look at", you get something like "to look at confused acts in a non-confused way". --Lambiam 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Google shows that this phrase from Hugh of St Victor's sentence mathematicae autem proprium est actus confusos inconfuse per rationem attendere has been used on its own at least twice, and once in Copleston's History of Philosophy, which perhaps you're reading. (Please include the entire sentence next time you ask.) So, "to attend to [in the sense 'apply the mind to'] confused [in the sense of 'all mixed up, out of rational order'] actualities [this is the best I can do to make sense of actus as a term Hugh would use here] in an unconfused manner." Copleston is perhaps a bit misleading in going on to speak of "attending to the line or the plane surface in isolation," for it is not these abstract isolates that Hugh would mean by "mixed up actualities," but rather the particular bodies as we experience them through the senses; these, seen "unconfusedly through reason," yield such objects of thought and analysis as line, plane, etc. At least that's my best guess without reading further in the Didascalion! Wareh 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
to Wareh
editYes, your guess is right; I'm reading Copleston. Thank you anyway. Omidinist 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway? Wareh 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
latin question
editIn a Latin textbook I read the following problem for translation: "Si dixeritis eos belli finem facturos, Carthaginem prima luce navigabunt." My question is, shouldn't it be "finem facturos esse?" Surely the sentence needs the future infinitive. Could it be that they have simply left out the "esse" because it is implied, or is it not needed, or has the book simply made an error? 203.221.126.254 10:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- The accusativus cum infinitivo would have been quite idiomatic here, but compare the sentence with this fragment from Augustine's Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Book XXXII): aut si fallaces eos dixeritis, eorum auctoritate Paracletum non poteritis asserere, et vos evertitis haeresim vestram. The verb dico can mean "to say" and "to call". If you may say that they are deceptive, you may also call them deceptive. As to the use of facturus: unlike English, the Latin participle can be used as an adjective also when governing (as a verb form) an object. See, for example, Virgil's Aeneid (Book II): timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. --Lambiam 13:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- To 203.221.126.254's question, I would say, yes, the sense is the same as facturos esse, so yes, this can be taken as a case of "implied" esse. This is the way every textbook and beginning Latin teacher would analyze it. (I don't think I'm prepared to accept that in Latin there is a real grammatical distinction between "I say that X is Y" and "I call X Y." I don't believe Augustine's sentence would differ in meaning with the addition of esse either. English "say" and "call" are helpful parallels, but "call" would not make sense to translate the texbook's sentence. Facturus esse serves periphrastically as the otherwise missing future active infinitive of facio, which is why I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on the fact that facturos is a participle. One way or another, it is what is being [conditionally] predicated of "them," and in that, as Lambiam says, it is parallel to fallaces [and less so to ferentes—note that Latin, unlike Greek, does not use an accusative + participle construction for indirect speech].) Wareh 14:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar, section 498,[1] deals precisely with this: "The Future Participle...is rarely used in simple agreement with a noun...[It] is chiefly used with the forms of esse (often omitted in the infinitive)..." I'd recommend Allen and Greenough as a good reference for Latin learners like the questioner. Wareh 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- To 203.221.126.254's question, I would say, yes, the sense is the same as facturos esse, so yes, this can be taken as a case of "implied" esse. This is the way every textbook and beginning Latin teacher would analyze it. (I don't think I'm prepared to accept that in Latin there is a real grammatical distinction between "I say that X is Y" and "I call X Y." I don't believe Augustine's sentence would differ in meaning with the addition of esse either. English "say" and "call" are helpful parallels, but "call" would not make sense to translate the texbook's sentence. Facturus esse serves periphrastically as the otherwise missing future active infinitive of facio, which is why I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on the fact that facturos is a participle. One way or another, it is what is being [conditionally] predicated of "them," and in that, as Lambiam says, it is parallel to fallaces [and less so to ferentes—note that Latin, unlike Greek, does not use an accusative + participle construction for indirect speech].) Wareh 14:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
opposite to sin
editThere is no word opposite to sin.Can we barrow from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.218.199 (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would consider Virtue, good deed, grace and mitzvah to be antonyms of sin. 84.64.123.72 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you're referring to "sin" as a verb though, I cannot think of a single-word opposite either. -Elmer Clark 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced any of these suggestions are really an opposite of sin even as a noun. If "sin" means "breaking God's law", then the opposite would mean "obeying God's law". Perhaps the original Arabic meaning of Islam, "submission to God", comes close. —Angr 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you're referring to "sin" as a verb though, I cannot think of a single-word opposite either. -Elmer Clark 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- "School of Thought A" says: Not-sinning does not necessarily imply doing good deeds. There's a vast range of possible human behaviours, of which only a tiny component would be classified as sins in any particular creed or belief system. A further small component would be classified as virtue, good deeds, grace etc. That leaves a huge remainder which is neither one nor the other. In other words, virtue is an active, conscious thing. You have to intend to be virtuous, it doesn't just happen. "School of Thought B" says: Anything, even the most innocuous subconscious micro-behaviour, that isn't sinful, is inherently virtuous. Virtue is passive and automatic so long as you aren't sinning. "School of Thought C" says: Unless you are actively doing good works at any moment in time, you are sinning. In other words, sin is the default state of humanity, and we have to struggle 24/7 (literally) to rise above it.
- These different perspectives (I'm sure there are others) on sin will have some influence over how you approach the opposite of sin. -- JackofOz 23:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Within Christianity, Protestants who believe in sola fide say good works don't make up for sinning. I suppose it's even possible for good works to be sinful, if done for the wrong reasons. And I'd say grace is something that comes from God, not something people have or do. —Angr 06:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"Sin" has quite a few meanings, which are you referring to? Virtue, fautlessness, good, pious, and compassionate all strike me as reasonable antonyms. Pfly 09:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've heard on many occasions that the word sin originated as an archery term in Hebrew. It means "to miss the mark". So in that context, I guess an opposite would be "to be on target". As I was just researching this, though, I also noticed that at least four different Hebrew words in the Bible have been translated to "sin".