Language desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 18 >

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.

July 17

Latin phrase

What does 'Quibus Societas Nobis Intemporaliter' mean in English? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No great shakes with Latin, but it's something like "Who of the Society of the Lords of Time" = "Doctor Who, the Time Lord". DuncanHill 09:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about that -- quibus is an ablative/dative plural, societas is nominative, nobis is the ablative/dative plural of the 1st. singular pronoun, and intemporaliter seems to be a negative adverb. It's rather enigmatic in isolation from a larger context, but my proposed rough translation would be: "by means of which, an alliance/partnership with us not for a short time". If nobis is in apposition with quibus, the translation would need to be revised, but it's very difficult to know how without the larger context... AnonMoos 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be missing a verb... Marco polo 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google of the phrase shews that it is used as a Username in certain forums. A bad Latin effort at "Doctor Who the Time Lord" seems just the sort of thing one would find in such a context. DuncanHill 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there's no word in the phrase which remotely corresponds to either "Doctor" or "lord", and three of the words in the phrase are not in their typical dictionary-entry forms (but instead have particular inflections beyond the nominative singular)... AnonMoos 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are some one-word synonyms for this phrase?

"...at an all time high." Got no help from Thesaurus sites.

Thank You, Marcie

The synonyms branch depending on whether you are discussing a physical phenomenon (record breaking temperatures, water level, etc.) or an intangible (level of skill, emotion, etc.). I would suggest that "highest" and its synonyms would apply in most cases. 152.16.59.190 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unprecedented" is probably the best word for what Marcie wants. Of course, it doesn't necessarily imply an all-time high. But if the context is already established that something is rising, it will convey the meaning. "Global warming has caused unprecedented temperatures" would suggest that they are at an all-time high. "The ice age has caused unprecedented temperatures", on the other hand, would suggest an all-time low. In "the accident was caused by an unprecedented combination of circumstances", the word does not suggest anything numerical. But that's the sort of answer you get when you ask for a one-word synonym of a five-word phrase. --Anonymous, July 17, 2007, 04:27 (UTC).

Also, "unsurpassed" works. (JosephASpadaro 05:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Superlative" is another possibility. Clarityfiend 07:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "peak"? Rhinoracer 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith - X201 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Peak" and "zenith" don't really work, because they imply that this is the highest point that will ever be reached. An "all-time high", if it was in the past, was a zenith or a peak. If it is in the present, however, whatever it is may go still higher in the future. "At an all-time high" really means "at its highest point up to now". Marco polo 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "peak" doesn't work, but I say it's for the opposite reason -- it could refer to a "local maximum", which is merely the highest point within a particular time period. --Anon, July 17, 17:26 (UTC).

In some context, simply the word "record" is used: "record temperature" to mean "all-time high temperature". Of course, there can be ambiguity in this, as a record temperature could mean all-time high or low. Then one must rely on other information. (Is it summer or winter?) — Michael J 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical Order

What is the generally accepted order in which to alphabetize the following example?

1. The Good Earth

2. The Goodbye Girl

In other words, in #1 (The Good Earth) ... what character follows the "d" in "Good"? Is it the "blank" character? Or is the "blank" character simply ignored and you move on to the next character, "E"?

If the "blank" character counts, I assume the correct alphabetical order is The Good Earth ... and then The Goodbye Girl. If the blank character is simply ignored and you move on to the next character, "E", I assume the correct alphabetical order is The Goodbye Girl ... and then The Good Earth. Please advise. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See Collation#Alphabetical order. Mike Dillon 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that both ways are accepted. Dictionaries typically "alphabetize by letters" (i.e. #2 comes first): this is a great advantage when dealing with expressions that are spelled spelled either as one or as two words (like "back seat" and "backseat"), because it means that both forms sort together and so you don't have to guess which form the dictionary uses in order to look it up. But other types of lists, like indexes in books, often "alphabetize by words" (i.e. #1 comes first): this has the advantage of keeping together all phrases that begin with the same word (for example, if you also had "good apples" on the list, you would want it grouped with "good earth", not separated by "goodbye").

Since your example was movie titles, I'll note that early editions of Leonard Maltin's annual movie guidebook alphabetized by words, but now they alphabetize by letters. This makes some sense since titles like "Man Eater" and "Maneater" now sort together, but those are rare enough that I still think the other way worked better.

--Anonymous, July 17, 2007: 17:40 (UTC).

Telephone greetings

Why do many languages have a greeting for answering a telephone which differs from another greeting? 76.106.103.106 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well ask "Why did people start using smiley faces and stuff with the advent of computers, and not before?" (i.e., in letters). It seems to be an outgrowth of the technology used for communication, I'd say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before telephones, the word "hello" was often spelled "halloo", and it was used more for attracting people's attention from a distance than to start a close-up face-to-face conversation... AnonMoos 12:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the common story, Bell wanted to use "Ahoy" as the telephone greeting. Gzuckier 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why in The Simpsons Mr Burns says 'Ahoy, Hoy?'. Lanfear's Bane

It's an interesting question. It shows that answering the phone is a different communication situation from greeting in other contexts. I wonder what effect seeing the identity of the caller on a mobile phone has: I know I often say 'hi John' etc. on a mobile, while I'd say 'hello' on my landline: knowing who the caller is changes the situation to something more like normal interaction. So may be greeting on the (landline) phone is different and often uses a different word because I don't know who it is I'm greeting (and I'm not expected to know either). Drmaik 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people answer the landline saying "2242" or whatever, some say "Hallo", etc. - CarbonLifeForm 11:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2242?! 68.39.174.238 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answer the landline with the number, but the mobile I usually say "Hullo [name of caller]" DuncanHill 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with regard to the original poster, I had read somewhere that in fact there were only two languages that had invented a phrase specifically for answering the phone - English and Japanese. It may be that there are languages which use some other pre-existing word though, I suppose. Confusing Manifestation 04:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caucus of one

What type of phrase is this? How would you explain its meaning in the simplest terms possible? I wasn't able to find the phrase in Wikipedia. Am I correct in assuming it is a tongue-in-cheek reference to a politician taking a different position from the colleagues they would traditionally caucus with? Thanks. Gfloner 09:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a play on Army of One, a former recruiting slogan for the US army. A lot of people laughed at that slogan because it sounds more like they're recruiting lone wolves than soldiers in an organized army where teamwork is important. So your "caucus of one" may refer both to the original slogan, and to its unintended connotations. --Reuben 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin as a spoken language

Since John Wycliffe was an Oxford scholar then he would have known Latin very well, perhaps as much as English. My understanding is that if a person knew Latin, that it not only was a language the Church used in it writings (i.e. Bible, documents), but that it would have been actually spoken among the European scholars of the Fourteenth Century - especially if that was the only language in common among themselves. Is that correct?--Doug ^talk 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the fourteenth century, Latin, or more precisely, Medieval Latin or Renaissance Latin, was certainly a spoken language used as a lingua franca by Europeans who spoke different native languages. This was certainly true of 14th-century scholars, most of whom were also in some way connected with the Church, whose official language was also Latin. Marco polo 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin continued to be a spoken language for centuries; it's how George I communicated with his Privy Council, when he did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass was conducted in Latin and the pope recently lifted the restrictions on this - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Pope_to_lift_restrictions_on_Latin_Mass. Lanfear's Bane

Latin was a pretty standard academic language into the 19th century (Newton and Gauss both wrote important works in Latin) and really only fell into decline in the 20th century. For Wycliffe, it's entirely possible that he may have actually spent more time speaking Latin than English. There were some missionary priests during the Elizabethan era who were educated on the continent and spoke more Latin than English (although that's also an extreme case). It explains some of the odd Latinisms in the Douay-Rheims translation of the bible. As an aside, the mass that Wycliffe would have celebrated was not the Tridentine mass, but more likely the Sarum Rite. The Tridentine mass was codified by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, long after Wycliffe had died. Donald Hosek 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Linnaeus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to presume that Petrarch spoke and wrote then in the Renaissance Latin. Which Latin would Wycliffe have known, both?--Doug ^talk 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arg, people keep editing when I'm editing. Wycliffe would have known the Latin of his era. He would have had no problem reading classical latin, and over time, the structures of Latin became simpler (so it's much easier to read, say, any church document of the late middle ages than it is to read Virgil or Cicero. Caesar, on the other hand is pretty straightforward. What exactly are you trying to get at with this series of questions? I've grown intrigued (although if it turns out that this is some convoluted scheme to get out of a speeding ticket, I'm going to be PO'd). Donald Hosek 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the vocabulary; Wyclif's Latin might have included a lot of jargon, depending on the subject. But there's not really that much difference; more a matter of style, pronunciation, and choices of spelling than anything else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well -----> history has shown that Wycliffe and Petrarch never contacted each other, however lived in the same time periods. Hypothetically (keep in mind I am not saying it is so), what if Petrarch and Wycliffe met. Petrarch did not know English, Wycliffe did not know Italian nor French --> however they both knew the common language of Latin. Then (hypothetically) they could communicate. Now I know there might be some that will get excited about this "hypothetical example", however keep in mind I said hypothetical. In this example then, it looks like to me they could have easily communicated, since the common language is Latin (which they both knew). See, it had nothing to do with a speeding ticket, which obviously will be real easy to settle compared to this "hypothetical example" I just threw out. What do you think, is it not possible then with the common language being Latin they could have communicated with each other? Both Wycliffe and Petrarch knew Latin extremely well, so to me it seems possible (should they have ever met, which history said they did not).--Doug ^talk 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wycliffe's Latin would have been transitional between Medieval and Renaissance Latin. The distinction between the two is not much more than stylistic. I find it hard to imagine that Wycliffe would have spoken more Latin than English. I think that spoken Latin would have been reserved for formal occasions (e.g. lectures) or conversation with foreigners. Wycliffe was born and raised in England and spent virtually his whole life in England. Most of his colleagues at Oxford would have been English. It is hard to imagine that they would have used Latin for everyday conversation when they all spoke (Middle) English as their first language. On the other hand, it would not be surprising for Oxford scholars to mix Latin phrases into their English conversation. Marco polo 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like (bottomline) in my "hypothetical example" that Petrarch and Wycliffe could have easily communicated with each other, since both had this common language of Latin. In my "hypothetical example" this would have been where they had conversations with foreigners , since each would have been a foreigner to the other - especially since neither had a common language with each other outside of Latin. I don't know about Wycliffe speaking Latin more than English, however Wycliffe knew Latin very well. Also Petrarch knew Latin very well, so bottomline I don't see that they would have had any problem communicating with each other (should they have ever met). Now according to history Wycliffe never left England and Petrarch never visited England, so this of course could not have happened ---> but in my "hypothetical example" they could have in fact communicated with each other very well.--Doug ^talk 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small quibble: Wycliffe actually did leave England at least once, according to our biography, to attend a peace conference in Bruges, Flanders (present-day Belgium). However, Petrarch did not attend that conference, so far as we know. Marco polo 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You happened to have hit upon something very interesting. It looks like Wycliffe was at this conference in Bruges on July 26, 1374. According to history, Petrarch died July 19 in his 69th year - which just happens to be a week before! If I am not mistaken, didn't Petrarch visit this area, perhaps more than once in his life? So while it may be "a small quibble" it is an important fact - if nothing else other than a pure coincidence. Now continuing with my "hypothetical example" - what if history had not recorded that Petrarch had not died then and he met up with Wycliffe there in Flanders (an area within a week's travel), could they have not easily communicated with each other. What if history said instead that Petrarch died in Arquà Petrarca, where coincidently Petrarch was buried for the second time in 1380. Again, I'm sure there will be some people that will get excited over this, however keep in mind this is just a "hypothetical example". The point I am making is that ""hypothetically" Petrarch and Wycliffe could have easily communicated with each other - had they met. However history does not record such an event, so it is meaningless that Wyclif's Bible came out in 1382 (which is the first English version of the New Testament).--Doug ^talk 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Easily" may be stretching it. They could have easily corresponded writing in Latin (although Petrarch probably would have written much more classically-influenced Latin), but if they were able to speak it fluently, and they may not have been, they may have had wildly different accents and may not have been able to completely understand each other. Adam Bishop 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, just so that I'm clear, are you saying that your example is hypothetical? :) -- JackofOz 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, since history has recorded that Petrarch died on the evening of July 19, 1374 (when he was 69 years old). He just happened to have been moved and buried again in 1380 at Arquà Petrarca (that's purely coincidential). Just because Wyclif's Bible came out in 1382 - that would again be just coincidential! Bottomline, in my "hypothetical example", Petrarch and Wycliffe could have in fact communicated with each other - had they met, which history has recorded they did not. Just because the only time Wycliffe left England was to go to Flanders, which happened to be one week after Petrarch died - that has nothing to do with anything, it is just coincidential. Bruges just happens to be within a week's travel from where Petrarch died - again purely coincidential. Flanders just happens to be an area Petrarch previously visited - coincidential. Yes, let me make it perfectly clear, I am saying "hypothetical." It's got to be hypothetical, because history has recorded Petrarch died July 19, 1374. History also records that it was his daughter Francesca that found him at his desk with a pen in hand and Laura in his heart. History records that it was Francescuolo da Brossano who was the executor of his estate - which of course has nothing to do with this at all. So I hope I have made myself clear on this: these 600 year old facts that just happen to look coincidential are just that - purely coincidential. The "hypothetical example" of Wycliffe and Petrarch being able to communicate with each other since they both knew Latin very well - is just a hypothetical example, nothing more. If you are thinking something different (whatever that may be) that would be up to you to conclude - my examples are just hypothetical and coincidential. History has recorded certain events and certain dates, so I will have to go with this "recorded history" since that certainly can not be wrong. Another coincidence is that nowhere in recorded history does it say Wyclif's Bible came out before 1380. Let's just say "interesting" - and certainly coincidential, nothing more than that. Since the consenses is that the "Babylonian Captivity" (Petrarch's coined phrase) of the Avignon papacy was for 69 years (1308 - 1377) would be coincidential. If I were you, I would not look into this and investigate it further - since all these are just merely coincidences - especially the events of Wycliffe after his trip to Bruges in 1374. It seems to me that Wycliffe and Petrarch were both opponents of the Avignon system and would have been considered ecclesiastical annoyances. It looks like to me they had very similar viewpoints they could have shared. History has recorded however that they never met - so obviously they could not have shared these.--Doug ^talk 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is coincidental at all, it's just a bunch of stuff that happened. I don't know what you're up to but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Adam Bishop 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you write this in Korean?

Hi. I was wondering how your write this in Korean: "Sorry, I meant to say, 'I am tired'." --JDitto 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of ways and expressions including the somewhat literal '죄송합니다. 피곤한다고 말씀을 하려고 했습니다.' Mumun 無文 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'죄송합니다. 피곤하다고 말하려고 했었습니다.' would be more accurate and grammatically correct translation. :) eDenE 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, Mumun Man, you beat me here =) Good friend100 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, it's just a whole bunch of question marks on this computer... --JDitto 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right! eDenE's version is correct -- I typed too fast and didn't properly conjugate 피곤하다. And JDitto, please try to set your browser's encoding function to include Korean and you will see the Korean characters. It is located in the 'View' pull-down menu. Mumun 無文 11:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not here! Here at Wikipedia, everything is in UTF-8 Unicode now. Mumun's advice applies to most other places, but not to Wikimedia sites. :) --Kjoonlee 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between homophone and oronym

What ist the difference between homophones and oronyms? Does homophone only refer to single words whereas oronym is more often used for longer phrases? -- 80.136.49.23 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of oronym before. Reading the article, I'm told "While they initially sound like mondegreens, reading the lyrics will reveal that this is not the case". I have serious doubts about this sentence. The thing about mondegreens is that the listener does not have the written words in front of them; all they know is the sounds they hear, which they mistakenly interpret as certain words when in fact they were intended to mean certain other words. What a person hears is not necessarily what a speaker says. Chinese whispers relies on this principle. A mondegreen more often than not occurs when the listener mishears the sounds actually made by the speaker, but that is not a necessary condition for a mondegreen. If that were not so, the oft-quoted classic mondegreen “Gladly my cross I’d bear” vs. “Gladly, my cross-eyed bear” would not be a mondegreen at all.

This website says oronyms refer to "phrases or sentences whose sound can be interpreted in more than one way as another valid phrase or sentence". The example they give is "The sons raise meat" vs. "The sun's rays meet". There’s no mishearing of the sounds involved here, merely a misinterpretation of the meaning. I’d suggest that oronyms are a sub-class of mondegreens. -- JackofOz 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, on reflection, another approach would be to strictly differentiate them as follows:

A mondegreen is a misinterpretation of a spoken phrase because of a mishearing of the sounds. (The speaker said A, but the hearer heard B.)
An oronym is a misinterpretation of a spoken phrase, not through any mishearing, but because the sounds correctly heard can validly represent another phrase. (The speaker said A, the hearer heard A, but A represents more than one thing and the hearer's brain chose the wrong one.)

That would require some re-writing of our mondegreen article, and the production of some suitable references, because currently we give certain examples of mondegreens that would not fit this definition of mondegreen, but would fit this definition of oronym. -- JackofOz 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also require redefining mondegreen. It seems to me clear that the reason that many well-known mondegreens don't fit this delineation is simply that this is not what the words mean. Sure, it could be, in a world where all neologisms immediately mark off a space for their definition and older words accede, but it ain't. [Edit to add name.] Tesseran 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there is no difference except that "oronym" isn't really a term (except in the meaning "mountain name" of course). We should turn this into a disambiguation page saying: (1) see oronymy, (2) see homophone. 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)dab (𒁳)

Islam's bugbear

What are the Arabic words for Crusade(r)(s)? —Tamfang 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic: صليبي, ṣalībī, is the general adjective. Arabic: الحروب الصليبيون, al-ḥurūbu 'ṣ-salībyūn, means 'the Crusades'. Arabic: الصليبيون, aṣ-ṣalībyūn, is 'the crusaders'. — Gareth Hughes 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately stemming from "Arabic: صليب, ṣalīb, "cross". Of course, that is a more recent invention, like the English word "crusade". Contemporaries usually called them "ifranj" or "faranji", "Franks" (since they often came from France), or "Rumi", "Romans" (as a general description of Westerners from the territory of the Western Roman Empire, or because the First Crusade was assumed to be an army from the Eastern Roman Empire), or, sometimes, simply one of the various words for Christian. ("Nazarenes" is a common one, if I remember correctly.) Adam Bishop 01:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, historically, الإفرنج, al-’Ifranğ, would have been the word used. In modern Arabic, it simply means 'the Europeans', but its root meaning is 'the Franks'. الروم, ar-Rūm, would be the usual word to describe Constantinople (İstanbul), so it's more likely to describe a Byzantine connexion. النصري, an-Naṣirī, is an older word for Christians. I would say that this word more likely would have described Levantine Christians of the time. However, there may have been some amount of association. — Gareth Hughes 11:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a side point, I read in a history book (I think it was some kind of sourcebook) that the main reason for using the term "Frank" was that the Arabs were implying a link to Charlemagne, the point being that he was a sufficiently iconic European leader from Frankish territory. Westerners were simply lumped into that category as a convenience. I'm not sure that there was any intended association with France. 203.221.126.225 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]