Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 August 11

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.

August 11

French o'clock

Marshal Foch's message announcing the end of hostilities in WWI included this verbatim quote: Hostilities will cease upon the whole front from the eleventh November eleven o'clock (French o'clock).

The expression "French o'clock" intrigues me. I can't find any evidence it is or was then a recognised expression. Clearly it means "according to the time zone in France" or "French time" (which was GMT at the time). Was this just a mistranslation by someone not entirely familiar with English idiom, or did the expression perhaps have a military use? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There was French Revolutionary Time, but that was in a more revolting time. Could be an allusion to that. Even if it wasn't intentional, it worked. Though that didn't go to 11. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit, I meant the French Revolution was "more revolting" (a bigger deal) to France. Ending WWI from France revolutionized the world to a greater degree. Part of me is now thinking the "eleventh hour" deal may have been a misinterpretation of 1.01 (1:01 AM) (not sure). The eleventh hour of the eleventh day in decimal time would be 2:24 AM on the twelfth day in our world, if I'm doing the math right. Fortunately, I haven't a source for any of that, and "French time" does sound more likely. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First Armistice at Compiègne says: The Armistice was agreed at 5am on 11 November, to come into effect at 11am Paris time (12 noon German time),[11] for which reason the occasion is sometimes referred to as "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just learned Britain's war started at 11 pm (12 midnight German o' clock). I find it weird how I've gone through so many Remembrance Days without hearing that. Seems like it should be part of the general story. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's at least part of Wikipedia's WWI article now. Didn't even have to add a source, that was already there, just not fully used. Like a Wikihydra, from where one time was omitted, the declaration time and the time this declared the war to start have sprouted. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See Lights Out (event). Alansplodge (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Saw it, sourced it, removed See Also (with the lights out, it's less dangerous). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This Telegram from Foch says French Time. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The link I gave in my question claims to be a verbatim copy of the words in the signal displayed at the RAF College Cranwell Library. Maybe there were different versions, each with a slightly different degree of officialdom.

The reason I asked the question is that I was browsing a book of quotations I acquired recently, and that's where I first saw this quote. But the wording is not identical. My version goes: Hostilities will cease upon along the whole front from the eleventh November eleven o'clock (French o'clock) at the 11th hour, French o'clock, on Nov. 11 . Now your link gives a third version of the wording. Curious. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• French has two words for time, le temps and l'heure. Temps refers ONLY to time as a quantity, that is "how much time has passed", and never for clock time. If you were to say "French time" (refering to the local time zone in France) you would say "heure française". If you were to say "11 O'Clock" in French, you would say "Onze heure". The word "heure" can mean both "hour" and "time" depending on the context. If you were to say "11 O'Clock, (French time)" in the actual French language, you'd say "Onze heure, (l'heure française)" I suspect the translation has screwed up somewhere; either it's a bad machine translation, or a sloppy human translator. --Jayron32 03:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Did they have machine translators back in 1918? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

They had their own equivalent of translating without understanding. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You can drop the article, we wouldn't use it in this case. It would be "Onze heures, heure française." Cfmarenostrum (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively "onze heures à l'heure française". Cfmarenostrum (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of Ravel's opera L'heure espagnole, which for the longest time I assumed meant "The Spanish Hour" but never got to know it well enough, or at all really, to discover it's all about Spanish time-keeping practices, not any particular period of time lasting an hour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

How about onze heures françaises? Or would that be understood as meaning Republican decimal hours? —Tamfang (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe "o'clock" is an old-fashioned way of referring to the time zone. It would be highly unusual (perhaps plain wrong) in 21st century English. Peter Grey (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard it used in ANY century's English... Could you elaborate or provide some sources to say as much? --Jayron32 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are other British uses of o'clock as well. Bazza (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If "Pimm's o'clock" means it's time to break out the Pimms, does "French o'clock" mean it's time to break out the French letters? DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

mais ooo, la-la! Surely you mean it's time to break out the vermouth? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Grab a two fer Saturday at 7, eh? Wait, that's EST French. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused, of course, with "stupid o'clock". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Dallas-Vancouver Game 1 of '07 went into stupid o'clock. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In case anybody reads that link and wonders, this is how an athlete can injure himself with a cracker (#1). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Voiceless lateral fricative [ ɬ ] vs approximant [ l̥ ]

I have read our article Approximant consonant as well as cited Ladefoged&Maddieson's book, but I am still in doubt. Can it be that many in fact voiceless aproximants are defined as fricatives by some unknown reasons and what is listed here must be here?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember ever having heard of a lateral approximant before, and I doubt whether I could pronounce one based what's in the Voiceless alveolar lateral approximant article, but that article says that a lateral approximant does not have a "turbulent airstream", and I can tell you that a Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative definitely does have turbulence... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The voiceless alveolar lateral approximant occurs in a few Mon-Khmer languages of Southeast Asia, two of which with which I've had experience are Khmu and Tampuan. Premsirat describes Khmu as [ l̥ ] (I've personally made recordings of Khmu speakers; it's definitely not a fricative), and Crowley described Tampuan.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also it looks [ɬ] didn't exist till 1979, and before that l̥ was used for both.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, according to History of the International Phonetic Alphabet#1932 revision, [ɬ] has been on the chart since 1932. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I was inattentive.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Original Greek for "hope...is a waking dream"

A friend has asked me to pass along this question. The quote "hope... is a waking dream" is attributed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius as quoted in many sources. See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle

But even trying to search the bilingual Loeb Library edition of Laertius at google books I am having no luck getting the original Greek. Can anyone get me the original quote of Aristotle in the Greek text? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the quote is also attributed to Pindar and Plato, which seems more likely, but I don't care about the attribution, I am just looking for the original Greek in a reliable source.

In the edition of D.L. at the Perseus Project, it's at 5.1.18: ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ἐστιν ἐλπίς, "ἐγρηγορότος," εἶπεν, "ἐνύπνιον." Deor (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec, adding anyway) It appears to be ' ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ἐστιν ἐλπίς, "ἐγρηγορότος," εἶπεν, "ἐνύπνιον". ' ([1], [2]). (He was asked to define hope, and he replied, "It is a waking dream." in Wikisource's translation by Robert Drew Hicks). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both! I was looking at a translation of the phrase from some language into Spanish into English, and it was apparently not very literal. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Serial comma - why no semi-colons?

In the article Serial comma no mention is made of semi-colons - why?

One of the uses of semi-colons is to provide clarity where commas won't do.

Consider the sentence given in the above article: They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.

If Betty is a maid, then punctuate it "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid; and a cook"

If she is both maid and cook, then write "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook."

If she is neither maid nor cook, then write "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook."

Yes, I am for use of the serial comma, but also advocate use of the semi-colon where called for.Bh12 (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would just use a dash. "They went to Oregon with Betty - the maid - and a cook." 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of the semicolon in series is treated in Semicolon#Usage. By the way, I disagree with your use of the semicolon in your example above, since no comma would be used in the compound object if "a maid" were omitted ("They went to Oregon with Betty and a cook"); therefore, there's no serial comma that needs to be replaced with a semicolon. I'd write "They went to Oregon with Betty (a maid) and a cook" in that case. Deor (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So write "They went to Oregon with Betty and a cook.", there being no need for either comma or semi-colon - I don't follow your line of reasoning. As for your reference to the use of semi-colons in series, this does not preclude mentioning their use in the Serial comma article to avoid ambiguity. My original question still stands: In the article Serial comma no mention is made of semi-colons - why?Bh12 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Because no one has added it yet. Be Bold and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of semicolons in series has nothing specifically to do with the serial comma—that last one that many people use before the conjunction. When semicolons are used in a series, they're used between all the elements of the series. Deor (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I was bold.Bh12 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I was bold, but all of my changes - having the explanation "use semi-colons" - were reverted by a user named "I dream of horses". I have no interest in starting a flame war in order to mention (in the Serial-comma article) the necessary use of semi-colons in lists that require them, so I am leaving the original - and incorrect - text as is. So much for being bold...Bh12 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You were introducing material indicating that semicolon usage such as "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid; and a cook" is desirable (or acceptable). As I said above, it's not. Unless you can come up with a reliable source that recommends such punctuation, that material shouldn't be in the article. Deor (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is acceptable; in fact, the reference you mentioned above, Semicolon#Usage, specifically says it is! How is it possible for an article on serial commas to totally ignore the use of semi-colons, where the items of the list themselves have commas and the refusal to acknowledge the semi-colon causes ambiguities?Bh12 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Chill. Never assume Wikipedia is complete. We invite the world to come here and improve any and all articles. That means we believe no article is ever so perfect that it can't do with some improvement. It's a question of individuals working on the articles and stuff that interest them. You can choose to get animated by what you see as a gaping hole, or you can quietly fix it yourself so that those who come after you don't have to endure the same mental anguish and dark nights of the soul that have been sorely troubling you. Which is the more useful response? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the article Serial Comma is far from complete - it has three main sections that are msrked as needing references or additional citations. And it's in those three sections where I made most of the changes and added citations. But nearly as soon as I made a change, it was changed back. I don't mind taking the time and effort to do something, but not when it gets discarded straight off.

BTW, I am not animated, nor am I sorely troubled - not even non-sorely troubled. But your lofty (i.e., high-falutin') language suggests that you studied English, so why don't you give it a try, to fix some of the many faults in the Serial Comma article. Quietly, of course. Good night and good luck.Bh12 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How is it possible for an article on serial commas to totally ignore the use of semi-colons ... seems somewhat agitated to me. But let's move on. The fact is, it doesn't interest me enough, so there's little chance I'll get anywhere near it any time in the next 20 years. Over to you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you get agitated very easily, so chill. What you quote of me ("How is it possible...") sounds a lot calmer than your vivid and judgmental prose: "you can quietly fix it yourself so that those who come after you don't have to endure the same mental anguish and dark nights of the soul that have been sorely troubling you." A self-description?Bh12 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Bh12, you've been saying that a semicolon should be used in a compound sentence element consisting of only two parallel parts—"Betty" and "a cook"—whereas I've never seen a semicolon so used and I see no evidence that anyone other than you has recommended such a usage. Semicolon#Usage shows how semicolons (rather than the usual commas) can be used in series of three or more parallel parts, but that doesn't apply to your case, since two-part "series" do not have their elements separated by any punctuation in normal English usage.

You may be confused by the use of the words "serial commas" in Semicolon#Usage, which are linked to Serial comma even though the words are used in a sense different from that used in the latter article. In any event, the matter should be discussed at Talk:Serial comma, where you should cite reliable sources (published style manuals or the like) that support the material you want to add, as people are unlikely to accept your revisions without them. Here is not the place. Deor (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)