Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 October 12

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 12

Kraft vs. Macht (German Question)

Could a native speaker of German please explain the difference in connotation, if any, between these two words: Kraft & Macht.

Is one more likely to refer to physical power as opposed to internal/mental strength? Thanks! 128.239.172.56 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Prelude

Since no one has answered you so far, no one shall. I am not a native speaker of the German language. But both terms have cognates in the English language: craft and might, and while the second term never implies knowledge, the first may. I also suggest you simply try a plain google translate search of each etymon. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In a scientific context Kraft is clearly defined and would be translated as force (F = ma, Kraft gleich Masse mal Beschleunigung). In its everyday use it refers most of the time to physical power, somebody is called kräftig (the adjective form of Kraft) if he is physically powerful (or as an euphemistic way to say the person is fat). Macht could in most contexts be translated as power, the US president certainly is mächtig (the adjective form of Macht) but not necessarily kräftig.194.105.120.70 (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP is right. I wanted to point out that, additionally, Macht is much more metaphysical than Kraft. Macht is, sociologically speaking, the ability to force your environment to accept your point of view. As with power it can also be used in a theological context, e.g. höhere Mächte, a higher power. It ties in closely with the concept of Herrschaft, or governance. Kraft is always physical, either in a specifically formularic context or in a slightly metaphorical one (e.g. fat or muscular). --Abracus (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. For connotations of Macht, basically see the article on Power (philosophy). You can also see the difference in the adjectives "kraftlos" (feeble, weak, without energy or physical power) and "machtlos" (helpless, without sway). "mächtig", on the other hand, can also be used in a scientific or mathematical sense. For example "Mächtigkeit" (but not "Macht") can mean thickness of geological strata or also cardinality in mathematics. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And yet in the doxology to the Lord's Prayer, "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory" corresponds to Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit, despite being theological. Angr (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both words can als be used in political context. After WW II Germany was governed by the vier Mächte, the allies, literally "four powers". Or in German, we say, the U.S. are the last Supermacht (formerly two, the U.S. and the Soviet Union). In the contrary, a political faction can be a political Kraft. A Kraft can be a movement. It would be used f.ex. after elections. Die Partei ABC wurde bei der Wahl zweitstärkste Kraft im Parlament would translate "The ABC party was elected second forceful power in parliament". --Matthiasb (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As a WW2 historian, I always thought it hilarious that the agency I used to work for many years ago as an IT technician was called Manpower ;) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wehr in Wehrmacht means defence. I'm not aware of any connection to the Indo-European root meaning man which shows up in Werwolf or Latin vir. Valiantis (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to add that at that time Wehrmacht was in German not exclusively used for the the German armed forces but also for the armed forces of other countries, e.g. britische Wehrmacht, it was a generic term for armed forces194.105.120.70 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a real or imagined conflation?

Please help! I thought I understood the difference between a "ballet technique" and a dance "training method", but I've been assured that my understanding is wrong. AFAIK, ballet technique is the dance technique used by dancers while dancing, whereas a training method is the teaching method used by teachers while teaching. I thought it intuitively obvious that those are two different topics because dancing and teaching are quite different activities. However, all my attempts to clarify that point in relevant articles have been reverted, and I have been told in no uncertain terms that "ballet technique" and "training method" together constitute a single, inseparable topic.

This came up most recently when I tried to correct the introductory sentence of Vaganova method, which says that the Vaganova method "is a ballet technique and training method". It seemed obvious to me that those are two different things and therefore the sentence had a structural error. Aside from that, I felt that the language could be changed to make it more clear that "Vaganova method" is, in fact, the name of two completely different (though related) things. My edit was reverted, though, and I was told--rather harshly--that my efforts to clarify this "false distinction" are not appreciated and the subject is closed. I hate to admit it, but it's possible I have been mistaken about this; no one has ever suggested or even hinted that I might be correct, and I've been told point blank that I'm wrong. What I still can't fathom, though, is how a dance technique could possibly be the same thing as a teaching method. I have never heard an explanation of this concept that I can understand. Would someone explain this to me in simple terms, please? Lambtron (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been explained to you in very simple, understandable terms many times, yet you seem determined not to understand the simple concept that although being two different words, the words technique and method are used interchangeably in the ballet world. In the context of ballet, they are not two completely different things that are related, they are WORDS that have different meanings, but they are so interwoven in all aspects of ballet that they are broadly referring to the same thing, just with subtle differences. It is very common for ballet teachers to refer to method as technique and vice-versa. It's not a difficult thing to understand - don't insist on calling and orange and orange when it call also be described as a fruit. When a method of ballet such as Vaganova, represents a complete system of teaching and dancing classical ballet, trying to rip it into two separate aspects makes no sense whatsoever. You insisted to me that any real ballet expert would be able to see if from your point of view. I am looking at this with over 20 years of involvement in ballet at a professional level and I have discussed this technique/method issue with other friends in the ballet world, and the simple response is... "don't go there, it's opening a can of worms".

One thing that might help you, is to have a read of the original Cecchetti Method of Classical Ballet, the syllabus book written by Cecchetti and Cyril Beaumont. This will demonstrate perfectly that a complete 'method' of ballet is a combination of technique, teaching approach, aesthetics, style and so on, without creating specific distinctions. There isn't a section of the book devoted to technique, and another devoted to teaching and another to style, it is all treated as one. HOWEVER, a ballet dancer can be trained in the Cecchetti technique, but dance in the style of a Vaganova dancer, and themselves teach the RAD method. Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand. The OED defines "dancing" and "teaching" differently. If a topic encompasses both dancing and teaching then it must be possible to discuss those aspects separately. That holds true even in your discussion above: "Cecchetti Method of Classical Ballet is a syllabus book" and is therefore a guide for teaching; when taught according to a syllabus, dancers learn dance technique (or aesthetics, style, method -- any of the synonyms you cited); one can dance in the Vaganova method/style/technique without having trained in it.

My confusion is compounded by what is said in various sources (please note that Vaganova method is based on original research). In many sources, "Vaganova method" is explicitly defined as a dance style (thus supporting your theory that "method" and "style" are ballet synonyms); in others (particularly dance school websites) it is said to be a training system. There is strong and compelling evidence that "Vaganova method" is both a ballet technique and a training system, but it can't be both at the same time; that would be an impossible conflation of two homophones: "Vaganova method" (the dance technique), and "Vaganova method" (the training system).

If my analysis is correct, the introductory sentence of Vaganova method is grammatically incorrect; if not, I would very much appreciate a clear explanation. In any case, comments from someone proficient in English are needed and welcome here. Lambtron (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Native British English speaker here: I think you're being too picky, and the conflation is, indeed, imagined. Of course it can be both at the same time! I have no problem with that, and I fail to see what your problem is. If a speaker wanted to distinguish between the dancing method and the teaching method, they would use the qualifiers "dancing" and "teaching" appropriately.--TammyMoet (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Tammy, I have been watching this thread for a couple of days, and I fail to see the problem. Ronald Reagan was a former actor and a former president. This does not mean that actors and presidents are the same (though they can be). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't accept that striving for correct grammar and clarity is "being too picky". Perhaps the problem statement was not clear? I have asserted that:

1. A "dance technique" is not and cannot be the same thing as a "teaching method". I have given a logical explanation for this statement and no one has contested that explanation in a meaningful way.
2. According the rules of English grammar, it is incorrect to write "Vaganova method is a dance technique and teaching method" because the lack of an article "a" before "training system" implies that the dance technique and the training system are one item (the initial article "a" seems to modify both together). That grammatical error effectively conflates two homophones. The Ronald Reagan example given by KägeTorä doesn't suffer from this problem because the first noun (Ronald Reagan) has only one meaning.
3. Good writing practice is concerned with more than just technical errors; clarity is important too. Though it would be technically sufficient to just add the missing article "a" to the sentence, additional changes are needed to ensure clarity. This conclusion is shared by two professional writers I am associated with.

Problem: It is alleged that all of my above assertions are wrong, but no satisfactory explanation has been given for that allegation. No disrespect intended, but claims of obviousness and proof by verbosity will not help to enlighten me or resolve this. Lambtron (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you will not accept any other opinion on this except your own, so why bother to ask the question? Members of the ballet wikiproject, myself and Robertgreer included, do not have an issue with the wording of the article and clearly contributors here do not have an issue with the wording of the article, so perhaps it is time to put this issue to rest. As I said in my previous "rather harsh" note, it seems to me that you have an obsession with semantics that are of little consequence to the understand of the topic in question. Perhaps I have been a little harsh, and perhaps it's me not understanding you. I'm prepared to admit that we dumb witted, poorly educated ballet dancers do not grasp the subtleties of grammar, but that's the problem isn't it, in the ballet world there may be 5 or 6 different words or phrases that all describe the same thing Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Crazy-dancing, none of us here on the language desk thinks your wording is wrong. Most of us are professional linguists. I would like a 'citation needed' tag on all of Lambtron's points above, as for example, why can a [single] dance technique not be a teaching method? I taught martial arts and many techniques were also used as teaching methods - as [combined with other techniques] they build upon each other to create an all-round form. I believe it is the same in ballet. The question, and its continuation, make no sense. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lambtron, I am a professional translator, proofreader, and editor, and have been since 2003, when I became self-employed as such and full-time. The lack of a second 'a' in my example of Ronald Reagan may be normal - as would having the 'a', as I put it in. It is unnecessary to have another 'a' and if I had given that sentence in a translation, then my fellow proofreaders would probably (in many cases, but not all) have removed the second 'a'. It is not necessary. Some people may prefer to have it, others prefer not to. Such is the English language, with all its intricacies and idiosyncracies, and, dare I say, ideolects, such as you and I have. Just let it go. Also, as I am paid per word, a thousand a's taken out from a long document can mean the difference between a good night out with some friends in a fancy restaurant followed by some good karaoke, and a quiet night in with a pot noodle, so these things are important to me ;-) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, KägeTorä. In your intermediate post, you asked why a dance technique cannot also be a teaching method. Dance technique/method/style is an aspect of dance execution. In contrast, a teaching method comprises the principles and methods used for instruction, whether the subject being taught is dance or cooking. Crazy-dancing has suggested, and I agree, that the Vaganova dance technique can be learned and used by a dancer who has never been exposed to the Vaganova training method. Thus, except for the fact that the teaching method is designed to teach a particular dance technique, the dance technique is completely independent of the teaching method. From this we can conclude that the dance technique and teaching method are not only distinct topics in terms of their English language definitions, but are also independent topics. That is why a dance technique cannot be a teaching method.

You have cited a very important concept in your Ronald Reagan example. I agree that the second article "a" is not needed in that example because the first noun, Ronald Reagan, has only one possible meaning and thus is unambiguous. Without the second "a", the first article would modify "former actor" and "former president" together, and that's possible because they are both attributes of an unambiguous noun. However, it's a different matter when the first noun has multiple meanings in a sentence. For example, it would be incorrect to say "a pipe is a water conduit and smoking device". In that case, "pipe" is ambiguous, so the second "a" is required. One could eliminate the ambiguitiy by saying "a pipe is a water conduit and a smoking device", though it would be much more clear to say "pipe is the name for both a water conduit and a smoking device". That's almost exactly the situation in Vaganova method. The sentence can be repaired and clarified at the same time by saying something like "'Vaganova method' is the name for both a dance technique and a training method". Lambtron (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Just like a troll can't be a lamb and a tron ;-) I'm just here trying to give advice, same as many others, and I am not here to spend my time trying to prove a point. Make your edits. If they get reverted, tough. You are the only one who agrees with you. Simple as. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Vaganova method, but I cannot find any evidence that the term is used in two distinctly different ways. Most usages refer to "The Vaganova method" as a single entity. Dbfirs 07:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly Dbfirs. The term Vaganova method, as I and any other ballet dancer would understand it; represents a complete system of classical ballet, a single entity with guidance on teaching, technique and aesthetic style. The current wording of these articles on ballet technique are actually a compromise believe it or not, because not long ago a certain wikipedia user swept through various dance related articles, removing them from Category:Ballet technique, claiming that they did not contain anything substantial or relevant to the topic of technique. These included articles such as Royal Academy of Dance and IDTA, because in their opinion, articles about an organisation are not relevant to ballet technique, unless analysis of the uniqueness of the technique is included (something which would require a ream or two of paper to do successfully). The fact that such organisations only exist for the study and teaching of ballet/dance technique seemed to have bypassed them. This is the same with Vaganova. Previously, the wording of the article described the Vaganova method as simply a method of teaching classical ballet, which was perfectly sufficient, however to qualify it's suitability for the ballet technique category, I replaced this wording with ballet technique and training method thus satisfying (or so I thought), this persons lust for 'clarity' (cough). Granted I can be a little abrasive in the pursuit of what I think an article should be, but on this subject, I'm starting to take the nit-picking a little personally. I have tried patience, I have tried looking at it from other points of view, and I've tried being downright stubborn, but it seems to me this person has no concept of the fact that when it comes to ballet, technique and the teaching of technique are not two distinct things, they are inextricably linked. KageTora is correct in the similarities with martial arts. I assume that similarly with ballet, a skilled martial artist will be able to recognise certain aspects of technique and style originating from the 'type' of martial arts that they study. And as with ballet, a martial artist trained in one style of martial arts would be able to learn another, but would not necessarily produce the same results as someone correctly schooled in that style? Another comparison could be tennis. A tennis play may have an outstanding game and technique, but without lots of training, they will not produce the same results with another persons racquet as they do with their own, because they will have tuned their technique and style of play to suit the racquet that they usually use. Am I making sense here or am I just rambling. I know that people are more or less in agreement, but I really do want to resolve this in a mutually satisfactory way.Crazy-dancing (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If I might just add one final note. My interest in this topic is ballet, and the clear and concise communication of information about a subject on which I have over 20 years of professional experience. I have little or no interest in the topic of language and grammar, save for being a reasonably well educated, native English speaker and writer. My use of language and grammar are scrappy at best, and I recognise that, but my understanding of dance is not. This issue arose as a result of articles being removed from a category to which they most certainly belong, under the pretext that they were 'cluttering up' the category. The concept of wikipedia as a broad reference point for a variety of topics within a particular category seems to have bypassed some people, and it is on those grounds that I am here, bothering to give my time to this debate. Crazy-dancing (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That was very helpful, Crazy-dancing -- I think I may have finally deciphered this! "Vaganova method" has only one meaning; it is "a training system that codifies and teaches Vaganova dance technique". A dancer who dances in the Vaganova style (i.e., exhibits Vaganova dance technique) is, in effect, "using the Vaganova method", ever if never formally trained, because the technique is specified in the training system's syllabus (the "style bible", per se). It is incorrect to say that Vaganova method is a dance technique, but it's correct to say that Vaganova method specifies a dance technique. "Vaganova method" is not synonomous with "Vaganova technique" because common logic dictates that a dance technique may be codified in a teaching method, but a dance technique cannot be a teaching method. In fact, Vaganova method is not a dance technique, as stated in the problematic sentence, and that was the source of my confusion. Is this analysis correct? Lambtron (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(Rolls eyes)... just to remind you that as far as everyone else is concerned, there is no "problematic sentence". You are the only person who sees an issue here, and you originally caused this situation by sweeping through articles and indiscriminately removing them from the ballet technique category, without any reasonable justification. I made attempts to prevent you from doing so to others, and all you have done as a result is find fault with those changes instead. Vaganova represents both a technique and a training method, and the description is accurate and perfectly acceptable, as you can see from the responses on this page. No doubt you will now transfer this debate to another project or talk page elsewhere, until you find someone who agrees with you, so good luck with that. For now, I will ensure the wording remains as it is. You once described the ballet related articles on wikipedia as a "festering mess"... so on behalf of we lesser beings, I apologise that we don't produce work that is up to your exacting high standards, but thank you for your charming assessment of our collective voluntary efforts. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You just said that the Vaganova method is "both a technique and a training method" -- that sounds good to me! Why not say that in the article? Or, for a bit more clarity, how about "is both a dance technique and a ballet training method"? Lambtron (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, what is this thread about? I am not a total idiot. I have read it in full at least thrice. And in part even more often. I still do not even understand what the question is.  ? μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In a nutshell: in a sentence having the form "H is a Y and Z", where Y and Z are unique attributes of two different meanings of H, is an article "a" required before Z to prevent an illogical conflation of two homophones? A very long-winded conversation indeed, but it looks like we might have closure. Lambtron (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still don't quite get that. But if the problem is the logical form, it should be easy to provide an obviously false analogy which shows by counterexample that the form itself is fallacious. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to provide such analogies. For example: "a pipe is a water conduit and smoking implement". Another example: "a leaf is a biological appendage and book page". These are analagous to "Vaganova method is a dance technique and training system". Lambtron (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My perspective is that of someone with a degree in English and very little knowledge of ballet. I think the article is confusing and Lambtron's changes will improve the article. Maybe the article makes sense as is to someone with a thorough knowledge of ballet, but is that your intended audience for this wikipedia article? What about someone like me, who has been to the Nutcracker and Swan Lake and just a couple other productions? Don't you want to direct the article to people like me, people who are not ballet experts? It sounds like this Vaganova is a teaching method, like the Socratic method is a teaching method. However, it is also a dance style, as East Coast Swing is a dance style. coolcek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcek (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What language is this?

I've noticed the following text on many images at Commons that originated here; for example, File:US-IN-Allen County Municipalities.png. What language is it?

La bildo estas kopiita de wikipedia:en. La originala priskribo estas.

According to his userpage, Maksim, who uploaded this specific image to Commons, speaks Russian and Esperanto, but (1) it has multiple words that are of Latin origin [the first three, and all but "priskribo" in sentence 2; see note at end], so it's likely not Russian; (2) there are enough Latin words that Esperanto doesn't seem right. Any ideas? Note: by "Latin", I mean words that are similar to ones common in Romance languages and that seem to fulfill grammatical purposes similar to those of Romance languages, such as "estas". Finally, please note that Maksim's userpage says that he speaks no English. Nyttend (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a standard Esperanto text "The picture is copied from ... The original description is ...". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was added to the image description pages of a lot of pictures transferred from Wikipedia to Commons in the early days (including some of mine). I consider it to be rather annoying, since it calls unnecessary attention to itself (while the real goal of such text should be to accomplish the specified minor task with a minimum of fuss and bother). AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, okay; I knew that Esperanto was apparently easier to learn for native speakers of Romance languages, but I had no clue how much of the vocabulary was Latin-based. Thanks for the input. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Esperanto has been faced with various accusations, including of being too Euro-centric, but yet the language has native speakers today and enjoys the status of being by far the most influential constructed language worldwide. For your information, the word bildo, meaning "image" or "picture", is derived from the German Bild. Lots of Esperanto questions these days... :) --Theurgist (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jes, mi ankaŭ rimarkis tion, sed ne certas pri la kialo. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about "bildo" — I was quite confident that it meant "image", and I knew I'd seen "bild" as the file namespace on some other language's Wikipedia, but I couldn't remember which one. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Symbol on the Wikipedia globe

What's the symbol?

The whole Wikipedia variant globe

I am trying to rename this file to a sensible name. What is the symbol that is visible? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the Tibetan symbol usually transcribed as 'ra', to me. It isn't, though. Also, I cannot find that on the globe we have up on top left of this page. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, see Errors in the Wikipedia logo. Is this a faux Devanagari ra then? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the Klingon symbol that was removed in the last redesign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 October 2011‎

This symbol appears at the top right corner of the Wikipedia variant globe. I note that both Tibetan and Devanagari characters appear on the left side of the globe, which suggests this is some other script. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for throwing in a red herring and not even reading the link carefully. Klingon w. Medeis has it. See "Wikipedia Takes the Klingon Out of Its Logo" ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Klingon script

Looks like it's a Klingon r. And KageTora isn't far off, because according to "Klingon alphabets", the script was inspired by Tibetan writing "because the script had sharp letter forms—used as a testament to the Klingons' love for edged weapons". Thanks, everyone! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "beadboard siding" mean?

ATM I am translating the article Chapel Hill Bible Church into the german WP but am struggling with this phrase. At the german reference desk] one user suggested it might be a de:Tropfkante. However, this Flickr image makes me believe, that the Wetterschenkel isn't what beadboard siding means. Googling it returned several results but knothing what was enlightening. Needless to point out, that several dictionaries I have available (both printed and online) did not explain the phrase. Any ideas available? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Beadboard, as you know, is some sort of composite panelling, made from various materials. I would be unable to put a name to it here in the UK as we don't have anything called 'beadboard'. The nearest we have would be patterned hardboard, although that is not close. If you google 'siding panels' you get returns that seem to indicate that they are vertical panels, (not floor panels or ceiling panels) that are used decoratively or functionally inside or outside a house or building. But the night is young and someone from the US will be along shortly to tell us all. Richard Avery (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that redirect is a mistake. Beadboard is not a kind of material but a kind of design for paneling, which may be made of any number of materials including wood, as these images show. What distinguishes beadboard is a decorative vertical groove. In addition to the decorative groove, the panels typically have functional grooves for tongue and groove fitting. The article describes a historic church, which were typically built of wood in the United States. In fact, the photo accompanying the article to be translated shows a wooden church. So, I think the beadboard paneling mentioned in the article must be wood paneling. I speak a bit of German but unfortunately don't know a word for this type of Tafelwerk in German. You may need to use a descriptive phrase if beadboard is unknown in the German-speaking countries. Marco polo (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Vertäfelung mit Nut-Feder-Paneelen? Marco polo (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm. That would describe the type of siding. Maybe I got caught by thinking too complicated when associating beads with Perle and considering the surface of the wood in the Flickr image drew wrongly the conclusion the surface has to prevent water to protrude into the interior, as in abperlen. You know sometimes one forgets on the KISS principle. Will use the Nut-Feder-Paneele which makes sense. Thank you all. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French necessities

In French, how do you distinguish between "He must not go" and "He doesn't have to go"? Which one does Il ne doit pas aller mean, and how do you say the other one? Angr (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Il ne doit pas aller means "He must not go". You can say Il n'a pas à aller if you want to say "He doesn't have to go". more info --Belchman (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, have a look at the "NOTE" here. --Belchman (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As usual I probably shouldn't answer because I'm not a native speaker...but to me, "il ne doit pas aller" could mean both, although it would normally mean the second one. For "he must not go" you could say "il ne faut pas qu'il aille", but that could also mean both. To really express the first one I think you would have to say "il lui est interdit d'aller" or "il ne lui est pas permis d'aller". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Il faut qu'il n'aille pas? meaning "He must not go"? Interchangeable|talk to me 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that you should normally include an "y". For "he must not go" I would say "il ne faut pas qu'il y aille" and for "he doesn't have to go" "il n'est pas obligé d'y aller", but I think we need to hear from a native speaker. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Native speaker. I second Itsmejudith on both assertions. Unless one tell where he doesn't have to go/must not go, one would add "y" ("he must no go to the swimming pool" -> "Il ne faut pas qu'il aille à la piscine" vs "he must not go" -> "Il ne faut pas qu'il y aille"). As I see it, "he must not" is a strong prohibition, thus translating as "il ne doit pas/il ne faut pas qu'il", whereas "he doesn't have to" meqns "he could if he want to, but it not mandatory", thus translating as ""il n'est pas obligé de". Pleclown (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it still correct to say il faut qu'il n'y aille pas, and if so which one does that mean? Interchangeable|talk to me 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not correct French. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Because... Interchangeable|talk to me 00:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Because in the negative "Il faut que" = "Il ne faut pas que", just like "He has to" --> "He doesn't have to". Unfortunatly the negative form of "He must": "He must not", cannot be directly translated in French ("Il faut que ne ... pas" is not grammatical). — AldoSyrt (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How does one distinguish between "must" and "should/ought to"? Interchangeable|talk to me 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Pluperfect

Hello. Today I took a test and there is one question that I was extremely unsure of, so I wish to have someone else's opinion. The question was: "That the thieves were not able to sell the sculptures that they had smuggled out of Sicilia shows that the market for stolen art has diminished in recent years"; the question was whether the underlined portion was a correct use of the pluperfect. I was seriously conflicted, because I did not know whether it was correct as is or should have been simply 'smuggled' (simple past). Any thoughts? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think both would be correct. "Had smuggled" sounds a little better, but I think that just "smuggled" works as well. "Had smuggled" makes it more clear that they (had) smuggled the sculptures before the sale, whereas just "smuggled" leaves it a little ambiguous as to whether they smuggled the sculptures before or after trying to sell them, though I doubt that in reality people would be confused given the context. Falconus^{p t c} 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think it's OK [had smuggled I mean] because the thieves smuggled the sculptures before trying to sell them. --Belchman (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The use is perfectly correct. The thieves smuggled the sculptures first and then sold them. What did you answer? Interchangeable|talk to me 22:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Interchangeable. There were unable to sell the sculptures after smuggling them. They stole them first, and then found out they were unable to sell them. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say had smuggled is correct; just smuggled would also probably be understood, but is significantly inferior in formal writing. --Trovatore (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to help the OP understand the pluperfect. Consider these two sentences:

• (a) I had eaten my dinner when mum came to visit.
• (b) I ate my dinner when mum came to visit.

(a) implies that my mum came to visit after my dinner was finished. (b) would imply that she arrived, and then I had my dinner, while she was here (maybe she brought me it or I just like having people watch me eat). Pluperfect (in the example 'had smuggled' implies an action that was completed in the past, whilst the simple past (in your case 'smuggled') is ambiguous. In your example, the use of the simple past could mean that 'they smuggled sculptures, and were continuing to smuggle sculptures, despite the fact that there was no market for them'. Using the pluperfect here, shows that they smuggled some sculptures, and then realized that the sculptures they had smuggled were essentially worthless on the blackmarket, and so stopped smuggling. Pluperfect is often called 'past perfect', with 'perfect' meaning 'completed', or 'finished', or 'no longer continuing'. Therefore it is an action that was completed in the past (and generally before the time frame of the story). So, we have the fact that the smuggled goods had been smuggled before the thieves found they were unable to sell them due to a lack of market demand, and this needs the pluperfect, or past perfect. I hope this helps clarify. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)