Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 November 2

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 2

German to English translation request

Can anyone oblige with an accurate English translation of the following? Not to worry about the Latin.

RGM Köln. Altar für die Göttin „VAGDAVERCVSTI“

DEAE VAGDAVERCVSTI TITVS FLAVIVS CONSTANS PRAEF (ectus) PRAET(orio) EM (inetissimus) V(ir)

Für die Göttin Vagdavercusti (errichtete diesen Altar) Titus Flavius Constans Seine Eminenz der Gardepräfekt

Als Praetorianerpraefekt war Titus Flavius Constans Oberbefehlshaber der Kaiser- garde, ranghöchster Beamter der römischen Verwaltungshierarchie. Sein Rangtitel: Eminentissimus vir (Eminez) kennzeichnet seine Bedeutung. Wahrscheinlich hat sich der Stifter selbst als Opfernder am Altar darstellen lassen.

Um 160 n. Chr. Fundort: Köln, Wolfsstraße Ort der Ausstellung und Begleittext: Römisch Germanisches Museum in Köln.

The text belongs to: File:RGM-Köln-Altar-für-die-Göttin-VAGDAVERCVSTI-160-n-Chr.JPG. I don't know how to provide a link without summoning a monstrously large picture onto the page. Thanks to whoever can help. Haploidavey (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the large picture, that's easy. All you have to do is exclaim "Evil spirits, begone!" and use this piece of markup. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Here's the link to the file (the trick is to add a colon before "File:..." >> [[:File:RGM-Köln-Altar-für-die-Göttin-VAGDAVERCVSTI-160-n-Chr.JPG)]]).

My translation:

Titus Flavius Constans, his eminence the Praetorian prefect, (built this altar) for the goddess Vagdavercustis.

As Praetorian prefect, Titus Flavius Constans was supreme commander of the imperial guard, highest-ranking official of the Roman administrative hierarchy. His title of rank, Eminentissimus vir (eminence), indicates his importance. The donator probably had himself depicted as sacrificer at the altar.

Around 160 A.D. Place of discovery: Cologne, Wolfsstraße

Location of exhibit and explanatory text: Romano-Germanic Museum in Cologne.

---Sluzzelin talk 00:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the line that Sluzzelin translated "Titus Flavius Constans, his eminence ..." is the German translation of the Latin inscription that is transcribed immediately above. And the line above that, which he didn't translate, is just "RGM [Romano-Germanic Museum], Cologne. Altar for the goddess 'Vagdavercustis'." Deor (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor. I missed that line. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are all great beings, rulers of firmaments and worthy of cult. As for me, I'll keep bashing my rocks together and see what happens. Haploidavey (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't affect the translation of the German, but also note that our article Vagdavercustis interprets the "EMV" in the Latin inscription differently from the German museum. I'm not versed enough in second-century Latin epigraphy to know which interpretation is more likely. Deor (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. Me too. I can probably chase that up with a Latinate colleague. Haploidavey (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The "egregiae memoriae vir" in our article is sourced to a book about Latin inscriptions. That one makes sense, since the letters are pretty evenly spaced. (But I'm not versed in 2nd-century epigraphy either.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

'On accident' or 'by accident'?

I've just been informed that 'on accident' is a thing. I've never heard it before today, but apparently a lot of people consider it correct. I've used 'by accident' all of my life, but the more I think about it, the more 'on accident' seems to make sense...so, save me RD/L! Which is correct? Which one do you use? Is this solely a US thing? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a paper by Leslie Barratt, Indiana State University which discusses both forms in some detail. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've lived in a few places, all east of the Mississippi, and I've heard both. I can't say which I've heard more or if one area used one more than the other but they are both used often. Dismas|^(talk) 01:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How odd. Never heard that one before. Death by natural causes; by homicide; by accident. "On" accident??? Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's something new for me: I've lived in many places in Canada, and travelled widely in the U.K. and the U.S.A. and never have heard "on accident". I would have marked it as an error in a paper. Bielle (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Has it derived from the structure of on purpose? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd think so, since I talked to a friend (in New Zealand!) and asked which one he used. He answered, "on accident sounds right in my head, because you wouldn't use 'by purpose'."Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"On accident", from what I've heard, is an expression that is growing up with the younger generation (30s and under); anyone older will most certainly say "by accident". Lexicografía (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"On accident," by one explanation, includes a cynical "accidentally on purpose" implication. I find this:

"In the ADS-L discussion, Carson suggests that some on accident users have a semantic difference between on accident and by accident with on accident meaning "accidentally on purpose" i.e. purposeful but disguised as accidental. In the context of my survey, subjects were given one meaning, yet many of my subjects used both prepositions and the vast majority of those under 25 said they could use both prepositions, so a semantic distinction such as Carson suggests was not supported by the present study."

...in the link supplied by Sluzzelin above. To my ear it sounds like the inclusion of part of the word construction of on purpose. Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

One interesting bit in that lengthy paper was the usage of "waiting for" vs. "waiting on". They might seem to mean the same thing, but not exactly. "Waiting for" I would see as more neutral or factual, whereas "waiting on" suggests a greater degree of impatience, like maybe waiting too long, or waiting "on and on". If "on accident" is intended to mean "accidentaly on purpose" (which I'm not sure is the case, though) then it would be a similar semi-subtlety. !!!!

When I say "waiting on", I mean it in the technical sense in computer science. It refers to the thing that will signal that the wait is over. A print spooler might be "waiting for the previous page to finish printing" or "waiting for the printer to be reloaded with paper", but either of these is "waiting on the printer", or specifically "waiting on the printer-ready bit", or that sort of thing. --Anonymous, 07:04 UTC, November 2, 2010.

... and in Northern UK, "waiting on" is waiting at table. I've never heard "on accident" and would regard it as either a joke or a mistake. Dbfirs 08:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard "on accident" all my life. I don't think it's particularly new. It sounds slightly careless or informal, but not jarring outside formal contexts. --Trovatore (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a native British English speaker, I have never heard "on accident". Not only have I never heard it in use in the UK, I'm pretty sure I've never heard it on US TV programmes or in any other use either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither have I in Australia. Ever, anywhere. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I heard "on accident" from my 7-year old daughter when we lived in Leeds, UK. It must be very regional because when we moved 20 miles away she said that the other kids corrected her for saying it. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard "on accident" for decades--mostly in upstate New York, not so much here in the Pacific Northwest. It always reminded me of "waiting on line" vs "in line", though I suppose the two differ in how they came about. Pfly (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the Eastern US, and probably count as what people have been calling "young" but "on accident" sounds completely wrong to me. I've definitely heard it used though. Rckrone (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref Pfly above - "waiting on line" is a new one on me (although "waiting online" is what I do frequently, thanks to a slow broadband connection). Could I just ask how it's used, and how it differs from "waiting in line"? BTW, another native speaker of British English, and I have never heard "on accident" in my life until now. Karenjc 14:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Waiting on line is a New York-ism. The rest of the world says waiting in line. Lexicografía (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

One talks about "being on the breadline" but if one were literally waiting in a queue to be given some free bread, one would be "waiting in the breadline". "On the breadline" is used metaphorically, not usually literally. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So while I would never say "on accident," I do say "waiting on line" and didn't even realize before now that it was unusual. I guess it is explained by the fact that I'm from New York. Rckrone (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kanji variants

Hi, are the following two kanji forms interchangeable and equally acceptable?

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?161995_%CE%E1
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?154e61

81.151.36.130 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes. The first one is the standard in handwriting in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.161.82.129 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Butt

What does the word "butt" mean and what is its grammatical function in this sentence (from The Pilgrim's Progress): Yes, there are many ways butt down upon this; and they are crooked and wide  ? Lexicografía (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is butt, v² 4 from the OED: "to butt on, upon: (of a line) to end in (a point); (of a road) to issue or lead into." The OED even gives this quote as an example. Algebraist 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So there is an implied "that" in the sentence, then — "many ways (that) butt down upon this". Thanks. Lexicografía (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Akin to "abut"? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)