Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 November 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 16

Meaning of Geheimrat

An old book I have which refers to the physicist Max Wien, refers to him as "Hrn. Geheimrat M. Wien", which translates lierally as "Councillor Mister M Wien" or "Privy Councillor M Wien". I don't think Wien had any role in government (a privy councillor is an advisor to government, a councillor is someone who serves on the board of a local government), but he did run the Physics Department at Jena University for many years.

What does "Geheimrat" actually mean in this context? Is there a rough equivalent in the English speaking university world? Consultant? Advisor (as in thesis advisor / professor)? Does it mean he was on the governing council (ie Senate) of Jena University? 120.145.163.144 (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

this discussion is unhelpful to the OP in answering the question. Wikipedia has an article titled Geheimrat. --Jayron32 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See the Wikipedia article titled Geheimrat, to wit "With the Empire's dissolution and the rise of Constitutionalism in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the office of a Geheimrat became an honorific title conferred by the German states upon high officials, accompanied by the address Exzellenz. During that period related titles no longer affiliated with an office arose, like (German) Geheimer Kommerzienrat, an award for outstanding contributions in the field of commerce and industry, or (German) Geheimer Medizinalrat, an award for outstanding contributions to medicine." That is, after the fall of the HRE, the term "Geheimrat" came to be an honorary title in Germany, not unlike "Honorary Knighthood" as it is applied today in the UK (that is, one is Knighted not because one will be a military officer in service to the King, as was the original meaning). --Jayron32 13:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Not sure about that last bit, Jayron. The link between knighthoods and military service is essentially a thing of ancient history. Knighthoods are awarded for various reasons, military service being but one of them. Some awards are still classified into Military Division and General Division, but neither is superior to the other. To qualify for a substantive knighthood, one must be a citizen of one of the 16 countries of which the Queen is head of state (see Commonwealth realm). People who do not hold such a citizenship may be awarded honorary knighthoods. They are permitted to use any relevant postnominal letters that come with the knighthood (typically but not exclusively KBE), but are not allowed to use the pre-nominal style "Sir". Same is true for honorary damehoods and the use of DBE but not "Dame". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'm afraid, then, that you're going to have to take out your sources which disagree with that and fix the Wikipedia article titled "Knight" in several places. Based on sources cited in that article, the following cited sentences appear. "Historically, in Europe, knighthood has been conferred upon mounted warriors." That has a source. If you have sources which say that say that historically Knights were NOT military positions (or, conversely, since that statement doesn't use the word "military", that a "warrior" is somehow different from "military"), please fix the Wikipedia article so it is correct. Also, later in the same article, again with sources, the entire section titled "Carolingian Age" seems to discuss Knights in a military context. Since you are disagreeing with my statement that Knights were historically a military position, you're going to have to find sources that disagree with that and fix the Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 12:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Jayron, the key word is 'historically'. Jack of Oz was actually in agreement with you on the historical aspect. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an honorary knighthood is and who it is awarded to. Please read again slowly and carefully what Jack of Oz wrote. Akld guy (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) (ec) Please reread what I wrote: The link between knighthoods and military service is essentially a thing of ancient history. That acknowledges that, once upon a time, knighthoods were given for military service and nothing else. That is totally consistent with what our article says. What I'm saying is that the system of knighthoods has evolved since that time, and now any citizen can be knighted if their activities in whatever field of endeavour they are engaged in are considered to warrant such an honour. The distinction between substantive and honorary knighthoods has nothing whatever to do with whether the recipient is a member of the military or not; it has everything to do with the citizenship of the recipient. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) So, you state the exact same thing as I did, and then tell me I'm wrong. I am still perplexed by that. All I stated was that the UK grants knighthoods to honor people today; though in the past it meant something different (that a Knight was a military rank with military rights and obligations). Which of those facts: a) that today knighthoods are given to honor someone, or that b) in the past (the past meaning "not today, but undefined time before today") they were military ranks, is wrong? I am still thoroughly confused by which of those two senses (the only two things one can read in my sentence which you have now twice vehemently objected to) are wrong? Is it the fact that modern Knighthoods honor people, or the fact that ancient Knighthoods were granted in regards to military service? You don't appear to consider either fact wrong. --Jayron32 21:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC) What I objected to was this statement by you, "not unlike "Honorary Knighthood" as it is applied today in the UK (that is, one is Knighted not because one will be a military officer in service to the King, as was the original meaning)." That showed that you thought that honorary knighthoods are in recent times reserved for non-military people, which is just plain wrong. Honorary knighthoods are conferred on those who are otherwise ineligible, specifically foreigners, and has nothing whatsoever to do with military status. You were just plain wrong. Akld guy (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The UK does not grant Knighthoods to honor people? --Jayron32 22:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Of course it does. But if you're familiar with the term "Honorary", you'll know it means in this context, as Akld guy says, an honour for someone who does not technically qualify for it. It doesn't just refer, blanket-like, to any honour. Would you say that an American recipient of a Congressional Medal of Honor is an "honorary recipient", or a "recipient" without any qualifications? Surely the latter. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Look, never mind. I don't understand the objection to my statement that the UK grants knighthoods as a form of honor on a person. Regardless, I'm OK with being wrong. I don't need to be correct here. I am collapsing this because it is unhelpful to answering the question. --Jayron32 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Looks like Jack was triggered (can one still say that?) by the phrase "'Honorary Knighthood' as it is applied today in the UK", which has a definite meaning distinct from what you said: a non-military Sir John is not an honorary knight as that term is applied today in the UK. —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The special penance reserved for the benighted souls of Ref Desk Purgatory is its vast and never-ending minefield of triggers. Only when one has learned to nimbly side-step them all may one ascend to a higher plane of consciousness. How long, Lord? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) ...as it is applied today in the UK. And in New Zealand, Australia, and other realms where the British monarch is head of state. Akld guy (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC) (A little piece of trivia, since this is the language desk: The word Geheimrat is preserved in contemporary vocabulary by means of the compound word "Geheimratsecken", (literally Geheimrat's edges/corners/angles) for a receding hairline (related: widow's peak) . ---Sluzzelin talk 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC))

Nobody seems to be completely correct. The word "honorary" in its normal sense means "unpaid", as in "honorary treasurer". 86.149.14.226 (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

86.149, that's an irrelevancy. Let me spell it out. Knighthoods are conferred on deserving citizens in countries where the British monarch is head of state. A non-citizen (that is, a foreigner) who is deemed to be deserving because of their contribution to benefitting the country may be awarded an honorary knighthood. This distinction in terminology is so well understood by those of us (such as Jack of Oz and I) who live in countries where knighthoods are conferred, that it took some time to figure out that Jayron was labouring under a misconception, and then convince him that he was. Akld guy (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Modern Greek pronunciation of Koine texts

Do we have an article on how Koine texts, e.g. liturgical texts, are pronounced by modern Greek speakers? More specifically, I'm looking at Phos Hilaron#Greek and wondering whether the rules for nasal + stop apply across a word boundary. I know that the ντ of ἐλθόντες and ἰδόντες is pronounced /nd/, but what about ὑμνοῦμεν Πατέρα, Υἱόν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα and ἐν πᾶσι? Is there nasal assimilation and voicing here? Are these pronounced with /np, nk/ or with /mp, ŋk/ or with /mb, ŋɡ/ or what? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You can see and hear a reading of the "Koine Greek New Testament" on YouTube.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just search Φῶς Ἱλαρόν in Youtube. I've heard only /em‿ˈpasi/. The other combinations are either with /-n/ or zero.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found it on YouTube. I'm surprised I didn't think of that myself. Thanks for your help! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just because I listen to Greek music sometimes, so it was my first thought to find the hymn and hear it myself.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)