Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 November 7
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 6 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 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. |
November 7
editEnglish - "Metropolis" or something else
editWhen we talk about colonies of some centuries ago, which is the correct english word to denote the country that they depended from? For example in the Americas, England for north america, Portugal for modern Brazil, or Spain for the rest of south america. I though that "Metropolis" was the word for it, but checking the article metropolis, which is mainly about a completely different thing, it seems that such a use would be outdated for this modern one. Is there then a better word for this concept, or should I use "metropolis" anyway? MBelgrano (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've never heard of metropolis meaning anything other than a big city. It was apparently used in the way you describe in Ancient Greece, but they were all about cities and city states, so they would have come from a specific city, rather than a country. "Polis" means city or town, so it wouldn't make sense to describe a country as a metropolis. I would say "homeland". When referring to them in the context of a now independent country a common term is "former colonial power". --Tango (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Metropolis is not an incorrect term, but I think Metropole would be clearer; however it's a rather specialized term that wouldn't be apparent to those who don't study history, geography, politics or international economics at least in an amateur sort of way. See Wikipedia's article on Metropole which should give you more of the information you're seeking. You might even put a WP:disambiguation note at the top of Metropolis to save others who might be making the same search from the confusion you just encountered. ¶ As for the substance of your question, there's no single term that's in common use: there are several, which differ slightly depending on the relationship. "Mother country" applies better to the home of colonies settled by those from the mother country (e.g. Britain in relation to the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand); and "colonial power" is a term that many Americans would not accept in regard to the U.S.'s relation to Cuba, Panama, Puerto Rico or the Philippines. "Imperial power" is often accurate, but again sometimes resented by its citizens, e.g. those of Russia or China. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Who would describe the US as Cuba's colonial power? The US never colonised Cuba, it was colonised by Spain... The US took control of it later, that wasn't a colonisation. --Tango (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Metropolis is not an incorrect term, but I think Metropole would be clearer; however it's a rather specialized term that wouldn't be apparent to those who don't study history, geography, politics or international economics at least in an amateur sort of way. See Wikipedia's article on Metropole which should give you more of the information you're seeking. You might even put a WP:disambiguation note at the top of Metropolis to save others who might be making the same search from the confusion you just encountered. ¶ As for the substance of your question, there's no single term that's in common use: there are several, which differ slightly depending on the relationship. "Mother country" applies better to the home of colonies settled by those from the mother country (e.g. Britain in relation to the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand); and "colonial power" is a term that many Americans would not accept in regard to the U.S.'s relation to Cuba, Panama, Puerto Rico or the Philippines. "Imperial power" is often accurate, but again sometimes resented by its citizens, e.g. those of Russia or China. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of a commonly used neutral term for this, but "mother country" is a somewhat positive term for the relationship while "colonial masters" (referring to the people rather than the country) is a negative one. Or that's how they seem to me, anyway. --Anonymous, 03:02 UTC, November 7, 2009.
- I don't think either of those really fit, though. No native would refer to the colonizing country as his/her "mother country", while no settler would use "colonial master" to describe, well, themselves. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. I think maybe we just have to accept that we need to use different terms in different contexts. An additional context you didn't mention is the children of colonists - they might well feel a greater attachment to where they were born than where their parents (or grandparents or whatever) came from, so might not like the term "mother country". --Tango (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- In Swedish we use a word which translated would be "colonial power", so that Spain would have been the colonial power of Mexico e.g. Would that be a possible word for this in English? The Great Cucumber (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not surprising to see a country referred to in English as "a colonial power", but we wouldn't say it was "the colonial power of" its colonies, in my experience. --Anonymous, 23:32 UTC, November 7, 2009.
- In Swedish we use a word which translated would be "colonial power", so that Spain would have been the colonial power of Mexico e.g. Would that be a possible word for this in English? The Great Cucumber (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Metropolitan France" is sometimes used to describe the European mainland core of France, perhaps this is where you got the idea of "Metropolis"? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's called that because it's a big-powerful-city part of France.
- It doesn't look like there's a term that wouldn't potentially connotate a city rather than a country. If it's necessary (and I doubt it is), we could coin a new word like metrokhoros (from χώρα, 'country'). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]`
- Arwel means France, the country, as opposed to its overseas departments etc. (In that case it's probably because French uses "metropole" differently than English uses "metropolis".) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- something from Orson Welles and Citizen Kaine refers my mind to Metropolis- i'm kind of confused over it. As to colonial powers it again is context -we refer to colonies and colonial powers, etc, while those under such influence refer to us differently. the mother country is confusing and irksome as natives and colonials of those countries don't accept such a term: the natives to subsequent colonials, and colonials with further generations from settlement. some of this is exampled by Australians and Aborigines in Australia and native Americans and Americans in America, and everyone else between who is old or new to their shores .--91.125.97.141 (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Latin ↔ Cyrillic converter for Tatar
editI want a converter between the Latin and Cyrillic orthographies for the Tatar language. --88.78.13.59 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- This article is a bit poorly organized, but Tatar alphabet#Cyrillic version appears to have a table of Latin and Cyrillic orthography, which you could use for converting short things. As for an automated converter for larger texts...I don't know about any (although this is not really my area), but if you have any programming experience it would be relatively simple to create one. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)