Language desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

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.

December 3

german translation q

how do I say "I drive home with my friend"?

Is it "Ich fahre nach Haus mein Freund mit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.248.193 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be: "Ich fahre mit meinem Freund nach Hause" The preposition (mit) would only go on the end if it were a part of a separable verb. Using "mitfahren" here woudn't make sense because you need a preposition before "freund". "Haus" adds an e because it follows "nach", and Freund would be conjugated in the dative because of the preposition "mit". I don't think "nach Hause" has to come after "mit meinem Freund", but I'm not a native speaker, so I'm not sure. Classicalclarinet —Preceding comment was added at 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to think of mitfahren as an intransitive verb: it does not take an object. Using that verb, you can say: Ich fahre mit meinem Freund mit, which then implies your friend is the driver, and you are a passenger. The version above by Classicalclarinet does not have that implication; you can't tell who is doing the driving. (Like the English verb "to sail" leaves it open whether the subject is the skipper or a passenger, the verb fahren does not imply that the subject is actually the driver.) Both word orders Ich fahre mit meinem Freund nach Hause and Ich fahre nach Hause mit meinem Freund are possible; the former is more common, and more appropriate if you want to say "I'm going home, and, by the way, I'm doing it with a friend", while the latter puts more emphasis on the fact that it is not just you who is making the trip – but this difference in emphasis is marginal and unimportant. A final remark: English "friend" is gender neutral, but German Freund is only for male friends. For a female friend, you have to use mit meiner Freundin. --Lambiam 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further note on Freund and Freundin: when used with a possessive pronoun like mein they tend to be interpreted as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" respectively. If a straight guy refers to someone as "meine Freundin", it's clear he means his girlfriend; likewise if a gay guy or a straight woman refers to someone as "mein Freund", it's clear they mean their boyfriend. However, straight women can refer to a woman friend as "meine Freundin" without suggestion of a romantic relationship. Straight guys tend not to other guys as "mein Freund"; they're more likely to say "ein Freund von mir" or "mein Kumpel" ("my buddy/pal") or something else. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of German: "Mein Freund" or " Meine Freundin" has no intrinsic sexual emphasis if used by same gender companions. It simply means "friend" / "buddy" or whatever. If, however, used in denoting a member of the opposite sex, it implies a relationship of some kind. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know of cases where a gay man has come out to people who didn't know he was gay by simply saying, "Das ist mein Freund". Before we were married, my husband introduced me that way to someone, whose response was "Ich wusste gar nicht, dass du schwul bist". In that context, at least, "mein Freund" was immediately and correctly interpreted as meaning only "my boyfriend". —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have experienced both meanings, and I think it really does depend on the regional and social context. Note, that where I live (Zurich, Switzerland) straight men do tend to be reluctant in saying I went on holiday with "min Fründ" (or "mein Freund" when they're speaking Standard German). It would be more likely for them to say "mein Kollege" ("my colleague"), even when the relationship is purely private (but not amourous) and in no way connected to school, University, or the workplace. Another way of losing the ambiguity is simply "ein Freund" ("a friend"). The "von mir" suggested by Angr isn't even required. Example: "Ich war mit einem Freund im Urlaub." ("I was on holiday with a friend.") ---Sluzzelin talk 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is abbreviation such a long word?

^Topic. 64.236.121.129 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask questions just to try to be funny. Wikitionary has an entry on the word, and it includes some info on the origins. Friday (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith 64.236.121.129 21:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has 12 letters in it (and 5 syllables)? Seriously, what sort of answer are you hoping for here? Algebraist 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the word is "brev", cognate with "brief". The rest of it boils down to "the thing that is made to be..." so, "the thing that is made to be brief". In comparison it's quite a short word. SaundersW 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's nothing in the English language, as far as I'm aware at least, that states there should be any necessary relational connection between the length of a word and its meaning. --Monorail Cat (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is like asking why 'phonetic' isn't spelled the way it sounds. Rhetorical questions deserve rhetorical answers.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation, please

This has something to do with a dowry and more specifically Megulla Dotata (large dowry). It is from the time of the Second Punic War and pertains to Scipio Africanus. It also has to do with Tuccia, daughter of Cesone. Who are these people and does Wikipedia have an article on them? Here are the words:

Dotis moduc quadraginta billion aeris fuit; former hoc non solum humanitas patrum conscriptorum sed etiam habitus veterum patrimoniorium cognosci potest: namque adeo fuerunt arta ut Tuccia, Caesonis filia, maximam dotem to virum decem aeris attulisse visa sit, et Megullia, quia cum quinquaginta milibus aeris husbands domum intravit Dotatae cognomen invenerit.

Appreciate translation and any information on Cesone.--Doug ^talk 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with the help of a really lousy translator, my best attempt is:

The dowry measure went to about forty billion aeris; this figure not the least kindness [which] the father underwrote but as yet he was in power to decide the ancient inherited property: for they were at the point of approaching when Tuccia Caeson's daughter gave the gigantic dowry to the man of ten aeris attulisse, which he saw, and Megullia, because of the fifty thousand aeris husbands went home and invented the surname Dotatae (dowry).

Please note that I only took one year of Latin a long time ago, so don't trust me completely. However, I worked through a dictionary and a (lousy) online translator, and I think it approaches something along these lines. Also the text literally says husbands, which I don't recognize as Latin, so it may be a back translation from English. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was great! Maybe someone will recognize the name Tuccia Caeson and tell me who he is. --Doug ^talk 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is actually Latin to begin with...if it is, you have a very mangled text. Adam Bishop 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unquestionably Latin. But, as I said, I think it was back translated from English. The Evil Spartan 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a corruption of a passage from Valerius Maximus (See here at 4.4.10). I know not Latin, I am merely a Googling fool. --Cam 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more-or-less what you get if you ask Google translate to translate that passage from Italian to English. --Lambiam 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not unquestionable since "moduc", "billion", "former", "to", and "husbands" are not Latin! But I see how it was corrupted from Cam's link. There it is "dotis modus xl milia aeris fuit, quo non solum humanitas patrum conscriptorum, sed etiam habitus ueterum patrimoniorum cognosci potest: namque adeo fuerunt arta, ut Tuccia Caesonis filia maximam dotem ad uirum x aeris attulisse uisa sit, et Megullia, quia cum quinquaginta milibus aeris mariti domum intrauit, Dotatae cognomen inuenerit", which I guess means "The manner of dowry was 40 thousand pieces of bronze, by which not only the humanity of the conscripted fathers, but also the habit of the old patrimonies was able to be known: for they were so restricted that Tuccia, daughter of Caeso, seemed to have brought the greatest dowry of 10 pieces of bronze to her husband, and Megullia, because she entered the house of her husband with 50 thousand pieces of bronze, she founded the cognomen Dotata." I guess you have to read the rest for that to make sense. What is an aes anyway? Adam Bishop 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a translation of that passage at Google Books. To paraphrase, Valerius is telling a story about how Scipio wrote to the Senate asking for a replacement because he had to go home to take care of his daughter's dowry. The Senate wanted Scipio to stay in command, so they raised a dowry for Scipio's daughter from the treasury. It amounted to 40,000 asses. Valerius compares this sum to those raised for "Tuccia, daughter of Caeso" (10,000 asses) and for Megullia (50,000 asses, which earned her the nickname Dotata). There is a note in the translation saying that Tuccia and Megullia are "otherwise unknown." --Cam 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is most useful information. My understanding then is that Tuccia and Megulla are daughters of Caeso. Who is Caeso (Wikipedia article)? ---Doug ^talk 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read, I don't think they are sisters. They appear to be two separate examples of women with large dowries, whom Valerius is comparing to Scipio's daughter. He expected his readers to have heard of the women, but today we have no information about them. --Cam 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, long time no see. Valerius Maximus mentions a Caeso a few paragraphs earlier where he relates that Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus paid a fine for his son Caeso (Quinctius). The Caeso mentioned in the fragment above is presumably the same Cincinnati Kid. --Lambiam 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, thanks.--Doug ^talk 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam - it is certainly not Italian. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]