Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 September 26

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< September 25 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 27 >
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.


September 26

edit

"deliver" vs. "give" vs. "make" – a speech

edit

During one of my usual conversations with friends, I said, "I have to deliver a speech to the standing committee tomorrow." This is when one of them told me that according to what he was taught in school, one should should say, "I have to make a speech..." instead of "deliver" or "give". I was not fully convinced and here I am, seeking the views of the esteemed group here. Thanks! —Such a gentleman 01:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Give a speech is the general term, deliver a speeh implies it may already be written, make a speech implies it may be spontaneous. Does your friend always believe what he's told? μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also use "deliver" in a more formal sense - like a business meeting or perhaps a eulogy. At my brother's stag party I'd make a speech i.e. make it up as I go along.196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with "deliver a speech". Google [deliver a speech] and there are a number of entries. It's just variety in the language. Like giving a speech vs. giving a talk. As to what that one guy was taught in school, some teachers get obsessed over particular bits of pedantry, including some that they're wrong about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French help: Concorde memorial

edit

Isn't this talking about a permanent memorial for the victims of a Concorde plane crash? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you've crammed together five different completely unrelated headlines.   It was scheduled to open July 25th, 2006, and consists of a Concorde-shaped topiary(?), and is in what some consider to be an inappropriate location (not close to the crash site). AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Does it mention a glass marker looking like this? File:AFGonesseMemorial.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions a topiary, not a glass marker. I'll translate some of it to make it more clear:
"The families of the victims of Concord AF4590, which crashed July 25, 2000, will have by this summer a place to honor the memories of their loved ones, at Mitry-Mory, while a momument is erected at the site of the crash, at Gonesse, in Val-d'Oise. Until now, the relatives have been meeting in the surroundings of the no man's land of Patte-d'Oie, in Gonesse, or at the Air France building, at Roissy. From next July 25 on, they will meet in a field at the other side of the airport, in Seine-et-Marne, at Mitry-Mory. It will be a topiary in the shape of Concord, with a surface area of 6000 m^2.
The photo you linked to is presumably a photo of the Gonesse monument that the article mentions. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most poorly formatted webpage I've ever seen. It wasn't the OP who crammed together 5 different headlines, because that's exactly how it appears on the webpage. Also, only the first part of the page is about the Concorde crash. The rest is about the growth of a commercial center, a musical contest by Pep's Star, a town meeting organized by the mayor, and a housing crisis in Seine-et-Marne. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tu and vous in French

edit

Do left-leaning French people use tu more often? Is it generally considered a political issue whether to tutoie or vousvoie somebody? Do a substantial number of people insist on using tu with everyone to show social equality? Thanks in advance. --140.180.242.111 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really answer your question, but one thing that's surprised me is that in discussions on French Wikipedia, the default seems be to use "tu". This is very different from my real-life experiences in France several decades ago, and at first I wasn't too sure whether or not someone at French Wikipedia whom I've had differences with was trying to insult me by using "tu"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using "tu" to everyone does not show social equality. It is insulting if you use it to shop assistants, waiters, bus drivers etc. If used to people in authority it is an indication that you have no respect for that authority: do not risk doing that with the gendarmes. "Tu" is a sign of "camaraderie", comradeship, so it is invariably used between members of left-wing parties, including, I believe, the centre-left Socialist Party, and between trade unionists. But also in many workplaces and in communities where not everyone is on the left: university students, SNCF employees, motorcyclists, and, as AnonMoos says, Wikipedians. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Wikipedia example is an illustration of the way that the tutoiement is being accelerated by the internet and its default position of informality in communication. There was a bit of a hoo-ha last year when someone called a prominent journalist tu on Twitter, causing the journalist to respond "qui vous autorise à me tutoyer?" [1]. --Viennese Waltz 08:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there's an old joke that Helmut Kohl said "You can call me you" to Ronald Reagan (who didn't have the slightest idea what he meant)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always learned that you should use "vous" when in doubt. I was quite surprised when I was in France and Switzerland that the (somewhat middle-aged) parents of my friends used "tu" with me, and I think they wanted me to use "tu" with them. I was also taken surprised when sometimes cashiers used "tu" with me in Switzerland and France. I even had a French professor (at a Swiss university, but she was from France) insist on "tutoyer" in the classroom. I have come to suspect that the usage of vous/tu today is different from the usage that my professors grew up with, and is really changing. That being said, if you as a non-native speaker are talking French with somebody, don't use "tu" unless you really feel confident that it's acceptable in a situation. Falconusp t c 13:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that safe. There are people I use first names with and still vous. Safer for a learner is to follow what the French person does. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pourriez vous nous donner un exemple? μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always used "vous" until I was told otherwise. This is partly because the second-person plural verb forms are somehow easier for me to remember (as bizarre as that sounds). People I worked with thought it was strange and funny and told me to tutoyer. Everyone else always used "vous" (the bank, the government, my landlord, etc). Basically if you use "vous" you'll never offend anyone, they just might feel like you have unduly put them in a position of authority! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T–V distinction#French has a pretty good synopsis of the usage of tu and vous. --Jayron32 01:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, the opening statement that "a rigid T–V distinction is upheld" seems to be at odds with a lot of this discussion. 86.160.222.175 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is upheld by who, in what context? There are many French speakers in the world, and they interact with each other in many, many contexts, and depending on the context, language changes drastically. The variability in Register is the same in French as any other language. In standard, formal French, the distinction is strictly maintained. Formal French is used about as much as Formal English is, I would reckon. --Jayron32 14:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tasse in German and French

edit

I'm slightly curious as to why (at least on a very basic level), the German and French words for "cup" - "Tasse" and "tasse" appear to be identical. Is this a case of false friends, or is there some sort of significance to this similarity? Morningcrow (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a loanword. Actually, I looked it up and it turns out it has an interesting history: the word first came from Persian (tašt), via Arabic (ṭās), from there into the Romance languages (Italian tazza, French tasse); then German first borrowed it from Italian (16th century tatse), then adapted it along the French model (tasse). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French and German actually share a surprising number of words. I think it has to do with the fact that the French and the Germans have both been quite powerful and neighbors, but I'll let somebody else who knows better comment. Falconusp t c 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go to a betting Büro and bet the contents of my Portemonnaie (excluding the train Billet which I need to go to a Rendezvous, or maybe a Tête-à-tête) that you cannot come up with even 5 examples of French loan words in German ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cute, but off the top of your head (and without looking it up anywhere) can you name five German loanwords in French? Germanic loanwords from Frankish and English, sure, but loanwords from Modern High German? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without a dictionary, I'm hard-pressed to come up with 5 French words, let alone loan words. Je parle seulement une petit peu de francais (seriously - I always wanted to know one more human language, but never found the time (and will) to learn one). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bankier - Appartement - Büro - Chef - Metier - Bourgeois - Maitresse - Dessous - Garderobe - Parfüm - Rouge — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French is in general a quite conservative language when it comes to borrowing, but alongside the all-language classics like schadenfreude and ersatz, the French have plenty of unique loanwords, some changed almost beyond recognition. They'll hole themselves up in the bunker of their blockhaus, eating nouilles, wearing their chic fashion and listening to the loustic joke about the latest diktat. The French Wiktionary has a more comprehensive list (although admittedly, a lot of the words are technical terms from science or politics, rather than everyday terms, and some, like frichti, have snuck in via dialects like Alsatian or Belgian French). Smurrayinchester 20:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French WP's article on emprunt lexical breaks down an exemplary set of loanwords (4,192 words (12%) of a 35,000-word dictionary) by language of origin. German is 9th on that list claiming 3.5% of all loanwords (147 words or 0.42% of all 35,000 words). English is number one with 25% of all loanwords (1053 words or 3% of all 35,000 words). The German article on Gallizismus has no numbers. It only says that French is second to Latin in terms of loanwords, but I think it's obvious that German borrowed far more from French than vice versa. German never enjoyed the universality or chic that French had since the 18th century, and it wasn't spoken in diplomatic or aristocratic circles the way French was in Prussia and elsewhere. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is older - "since biblical times" or "since ancient times"?

edit

Do people use the term "since biblical times" to really refer to the time periods in which the Bible was written, or do they really mean "since ancient times" with no specific time period, throughout the global human history? 164.107.102.193 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither term is precisely dated. Ancient times usually refers to Classical antiquity, i.e. Egyptian, Middle Eastern, Greek and Roman civilizations. Biblical times coincides with that fairly well, given that the Bible, insofar as the events therein can be reliably dated to actual dates, date from about 2000 BC (Abraham and the other Patriarchs) to (including the New Testament) the writings of Paul the Apostle and John the Evangelist, which date to as late as AD 120 or so at the latest. That time frame coincides well with the ancient and classical civilizations. The Middle Kingdom of Egypt flourished at the same time as the Biblical patriarchs, the period of the Babylonian captivity (the later historical events described in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) occurred just prior to the rise of the Achaemenid Empire (Persia) and the return to Israel of the exiles occured during the reign of Cyrus the Great. The Intertestamental period coincides with the rise of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period in the Middle East, while the New Testament coincides squarely with the foundation of the Roman Empire. Augustus, founder of the Empire, ruled at Jesus' birth, while Tiberius, his successor, was Emperor at Jesus' death. --Jayron32 14:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to assume that Abraham and the Patriarchs were real people. If they didn't exist, then the Ancient Sumerians of the Fertile Crescent and the Ancient Chinese would probably be the leading ancient civilizations. 164.107.102.193 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't have to assume anything, excepting the usual dating by scholars who take seriously the attempt to date these things. Yes, there are scholars who doubt that such people existed, and there are scholars that do not, but you asked about the connection between "ancient times" and "biblical times" and insofar as scholars have dated the events described in the bible, the two coincide nicely. There's no need to split hairs over biblical historicity or picking an exact date on when both terms apply (does it matter if "biblical times" started the Thursday after "ancient times" did?) The two terms are imprecise enough to be nearly exact synonyms, and there's no need to engage in a debate over the historicity of the Biblical patriarchs to establish that. --Jayron32 14:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought Biblical times referred to the time the Bible was written, as opposed to the earliest event in the Bible. Since Genesis literally starts with the beginning of the universe, does "Biblical times" refer to 13.7 billion years ago? --Bowlhover (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think Genesis is supposed to be a traditional Jewish narrative, which is part of the Torah, and the Torah is meant to teach, not explain away how old the Earth is. Ancient people also probably lacked the appreciation of deep time, so their thinking processes were somewhat different than today. 164.107.102.193 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have (the redirects) Ancient times and Biblical times. Ancient times is described as "from the beginning of recorded human history to the Early Middle Ages or the post-classical era". Biblical times is a little harder, but my understanding is it covers the period of time described in the New Testament (ie. ~6 BC until ~AD 135) - although you could argue it should also include the period described in the Old testament (ie. from ~4000 BC). Note however, that much of the bible was written later. Before ancient times, there were Prehistoric times, described as "the span of time before recorded history"; and after biblical times was the decline of Roman times followed by the Middle Ages, the Early modern period and the Modern age. Astronaut (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Ancient times refers to prehistory from the beginning of civilization to the beginning of continuous history--certainly not as late as Caesar or the Dark Ages. For the Greeks the ancient times would be the pre-Homeric era. The post-Homeric Greco-Roman era is broadly the classical era for laymen, although specialists use other terms like Hellenistic, and use classical in a narrower sense. Biblical times would overlap and be older, since David ruled around 1,000 BC, Moses led before him, and the tales of Babel and Noah reflect even older events. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would take "Ancient times" to include the Roman empire, roughly to the 5th century. -- Elphion (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That make ssense if you distinguish only between ancient and modern, and call the middle ages modern. As for Biblical times, the Black Sea Flood dates to 5600 BC, while the book of acts dates to about 50 AD, and Revelations may have been written a few decades later at most. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Renaissance forward is modern, all the rest, ancient, except for a dark interregnum. ;) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are standard definitions. Modern is after 1453. Ancient times last until, as already said, to the end of the Roman Empire. In the middle are the Middle Ages, named because... Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to split hairs, the end of the Western Roman Empire marks the end of Antiquity, in 476. The end of the Middle Ages is often dated to the end of the Eastern Roman Empire (the 1453 date you cite is the date of the final Fall of Constantinople, which marked the end of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453). Again, it's not like those specific years are all that set-in-stone among historians. It's more usual to speak in broad terms that the Middle Ages is roughly the millenium between the fifth and the fifteenth centuries AD, with Antiquity before and Modernity after. --Jayron32 01:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you, Jayron. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

about s' of the let's

edit

what does the letter 'S stand for in the word let's? (In example in the sentence: "Let’s look at losing weight." and "Let’s look at some examples:" thank you)95.35.246.240 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Us, as in "let us look at losing weight." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "us." See contraction (grammar) for similar examples. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it. Thank you for the answers, particularly for the link. It helped me for another cases that mentioned there. 95.35.246.240 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words "let" and "leave", in the sense of "allow", are near-synonyms, hence the ungrammatical but funny expression, "Leave us leave!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, when discussing allowing someone to rent a large number of peices of land "Let's let them let lots and lots of lots" MChesterMC (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Groucho and Chico had a conversation along those lines in The Cocoanuts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how do "will not" became to won't

edit

I don't understand how "will not" has became to won't. When I look at other contractions, I see that their changing/contraction make sense, but in this case id doesn't make sense at all, when the vowels get such opposite. 95.35.246.240 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer questions like this is why God created etymology online. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This question was answered a few weeks ago here Duoduoduo (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduplication

edit

While looking at some Australian place names I discovered List of reduplicated Australian place names. It led me to the article in the heading. I wondered why it's "REduplicated". Surely if Wagga Wagga was reduplicated it would become Wagga Wagga Wagga Wagga. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem odd, but the usages "reduplicate" and "redouble" have been around for hundreds of years.[2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cue this song (here's a translation for those in need: [3]). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. And definitely bouncier than "Waltzing Matilda". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We were taught in CCD that "rose again" was English idiom, not a mistake, and that Jesus hadn't risen on Saturday the first time, then gone back to the grave. Same for reduplication--it's a form of emphasis, not dundancy. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Come back again, I'm just crazy about you, babe". Did babe leave more than once? I doubt it. It shouldn't be read literally; the "again" refers to being with the singer once more, not to the travelling back. For once, it's not about the journey but about the destination. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at the Talk page for Reduplication. A discussion there back in 2008 basically agreed with Bugs' comment above. It does seem wrong, but it's just the way the things have been for a long time. Ain't English amazing? I'd hate to have to learn it from scratch now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 9#Pre-planned.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A more grammatically proper usage was a comment that Robert Klein made in reference to Richard Nixon's pal Bebe Rebozo: "It sounds like, 'To Bozo again'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2013_September_26&oldid=1138618052"