Language desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

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.

April 15

Greek Translation: Odyssey

Will someone please translate and transliterate this for me?

ειμ' Όδυσεύs Λαερτιάδηs, όs πάσι δόλοισιν 'ανθρώποισι μέλω, καί μευ κλέοs ούρανόν ίκει. ναιετάω δ' Ίθάκην εύδείελον έν δ' όροs αύrή, Νήριτον είνοσίφυλλον άριπρεπέs. άμφί δέ νήσοι πολλαί ναιετάουσι μαλα σχεδόν άλλήλησι, Δουλίχιόν τε Σάμη τε καί ύλήεσσα Ζάκυνθοs.

Note that some of the accents were unavailable so some may be going the wrong way or should be split. This is due to the unavailabilbity of these accents.

Thanks, Zrs 12 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Odyssey, 9, lines 19–24. In the Murray translation:

I am Odysseus, son of Laertes, who am known among men for all manner of wiles, and my fame reaches unto heaven. But I dwell in clear-seen Ithaca, wherein is a mountain, Neriton, covered with waving forests, conspicuous from afar; and round it lie many isles hard by one another, Dulichium, and Same, and wooded Zacynthus.

Let someone else transliterate it. That's easy to do (and, *ahem*, easy to learn to do for yourself). But it takes time, especially getting all of the diacriticals right. Someone will find a program online to do it automatically.

The fuller text, with all polytonic diacriticals:

Εἴμ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς Λαερτιάδης, ὃς πᾶσι δόλοισιν
ἀνθρώποισι μέλω, καί μευ κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει.
Ναιετάω δ᾽ Ἰθάκην ἐυδείελον· ἐν δ᾽ ὄρος αὐτῇ
Νήριτον εἰνοσίφυλλον, ἀριπρεπές· ἀμφὶ δὲ νῆσοι
πολλαὶ ναιετάουσι μάλα σχεδὸν ἀλλήλῃσι,
Δουλίχιόν τε Σάμη τε καὶ ὑλήεσσα Ζάκυνθος.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Where did you get all the diacriticals? Furthermore, I can partially transliterate it for myself, but I have no idea when it comes to the diacriticals. Zrs 12 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration (which I did before Noetica and you edit-conflicted me; I was going to include the Fitzgerald translation):

eim' Oduseus Laertiadēs, hos pasi doloisin

anthrōpoisi melō, kai meu kleos ouranon ikei.

naietaō d' Ithakēn eudeielon; en d' oros autēi,

Nēriton einosiphullon ariprepes; amphi de nēsoi

pollai naietaousi mala schedon allēlēisi,

Doulichion te Samē te kai hulēessa Zakunthos.

Deor (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist adding that when I opened up my school edition of the Odyssey to check the text, I found my draft card (4F) dated 1970. Sigh … It's been a long time since I studied Greek formally. Deor (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. You were very helpful. By the way, I'm sorry Deor for edit-conflicting you. I do apologize. Noetica: I would have transliterated it myself if I could have, but I can't. I also believe that if I see this transliterated and then try to learn transliteration it will be easier. Once again, thanks all. Zrs 12 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chis can be transliterated "kh" rather than "ch" if you want. I just went with the more familiar romanization. Deor (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[After edit conflict:]

Good, Deor. Your transliteration identifies the letters themselves (that is, it distinguishes omicron and omega, for example). But it omits accents. It is not completely accurate, and does not correspond precisely to either version of the text above. (Your hulēessa, for example: why the second e? And allēlēisi: where did you get the iota subscript in that? It is not in the first version above.) But that will all be of use to Zrs, anyway.

Zrs, I got the Greek simply by searching online. The transliteration of the polytonic version would be a straightforward mechanical matter using Unicode entities. But it is time-consuming, as I say. Let's see if anyone has a freeware program to do this for us! Your text does include some combinations like ῆ and ῶ. These, and some more complicated ones, are not available in transliteration as single Unicode entities. For example ῶ would need to be a mix of ô both and ō. I cheat, in such a case, and use Unicode ṓ.

If anyone has an elegant solution to this problem with ῆ and ῶ, I want to hear about it!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your hulēessa, for example: why the second e?" —Well, there's an eta (ē) followed by an epsilon (e) in the word. "And allēlēisi: where did you get the iota subscript in that? It is not in the first version above." —Yes it is, right under the second eta. As for the "accents," we moderns call them pitch marks. If you want to pronounce the words with stresses, just use the same rules you'd use for pronouncing Latin. If you want to vary the pitch, look at the Greek. They're not usually reproduced in a romanization. Deor (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

""And allēlēisi: where did you get the iota subscript in that? It is not in the first version above." —Oops, I see what you mean; it's not there in Zr 12's version. It is, however, in your version and in the text I was looking at. I just assumed Zr 12 was unable to reproduce it, as he said he was having trouble with diacritics. Deor (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[After edit conflict:]

O, Deor! Forgive me. Of course I simply misread ύλήεσσα. I was writing too fast, and not thinking at the time. But as for άλλήλησι (as it is in the first version given above), I beg to differ. The second eta does not have a iota subscript there. It should be there, sure: but since the evidence was that you were working from that version, I wondered what was going on. Same for the earlier αύrή [sic]. That's all.

Of course I understand the distinction you make between pitch and accent, and the whole matter of Latin stress protocols for modern anglophone reading of classical Greek. I hope your remarks are useful to others. In fact, though, the terms stress and accent are of uncertain extension in modern usage generally (as I was discussing with another editor recently). To do this topic justice would take some time, and it would be beyond the present brief.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether the diacritical marks ought to be reproduced in transliteration of Greek (as I will call it: not romanisation: a more general term usually reserved for converting Chinese and other non-alphabetic scripts), there are times when you do want to show them. Ostler does it regularly in Empires of the Word, to good effect and in conformity with his wider practice. It would have been odd to omit them when the equivalent information is included for other languages.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1942 Japanese map

If you look at this map, you can see that an area between the Yellow River, the Yellow Sea and Beijing is labelled something like 東北〇〇委員會 in kyūjitai. Was that some kind of puppet government? Is there a Wikipedia article about it? Wikipeditor (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your link does not take me to any map.--Lgriot (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using Firefox? I didn't see it either, till I toggled to IE display. This is maybe the third time I've come across a page which FF won't display but IE will. kwami (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can solve referrer problems by dragging and dropping the address into the page. 華北政務委員會 perhaps? --Kjoonlee 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! Looks like this is what is meant by the "North China Political Council" in the Provisional Government of the Republic of China article. kwami (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Kjoonlee and kwami! I've added the characters to the article. It seems the Japanese and Chinese WPs don't have separate articles on the NCPC, either. Sorry for the referrer problem. Wikipeditor (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English to Mongolian translation

Hi, I'm looking for a English-to-Mongolian translation online. I know there's gotta be a ton of brilliant people on this site, surely one of you all knows something on the net. Failing that, would any of you be able to translate "annihilator" into Mongolian? I'm sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, by the way.--130.126.67.144 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that online Babelfish-type software will be supporting Mongolian any time soon... AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will. There are some online Mongolian Dictionaries, like this one: [1]. And it gives cölüidegül for annihilate. --Omidinist (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That dictionary doesn't give a result for annihilator, but a search for destroyer [2] gives some results with a very similar meaning. To see them in Classical Mongolian script, you will need to install their font. Modern Mongolian uses the Cyrillic alphabet, and is spelled somewhat differently to Classical Mongolian - the sound system is modernised to account for sound changes. Steewi (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leverage: the verb

Is it entirely correct to use 'leverage' as a verb? Are there any benefits/added meanings over simply using 'to lever'? The dictionary indicates it is acceptable as a verb, but since it's an online one I wonder if the use has simply become acceptable through repeated usage (I suspect from marketing and sales language). FreeMorpheme (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it very much depends who you ask. Marketing/sales people use it all the time, and they'd say it's absolutely uncontentious. But I abhor it to the height and depth of my being, and would rather eat my grandmother's pancreas than ever, ever, ever, ever, ever use it as a verb. (That's under any circumstances whatsoever, in case I wasn't being entirely clear.) Same goes for "transition" as a verb. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Leverage" in finance can be used as a verb (and is slightly more meaningful than its vaccuous usage in marketing/sales -- like almost any other word in marketing/sales). Financial "leverage" has a technical meaning in finance, being (usually) the ratio of debt to equity. The verbified verb "to leverage" means "to increase the debt/equity ratio" or "to use debt...", as in "leveraged buyout".

However, I would guess a purist (hi Jack) might say a better way to say "to leverage" would be "to increase the leverage" and a better way to say "leveraged buyout" would be "high-leverage transaction" or "debt-funded acquisition". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jack on this. And I think the point is that just because the noun "leverage" exists is no reason to make a verb out of it. Use of "leverage" as a verb is intended to make the work of the writer/speaker more important and complex than it really is. In terms of debt-to-equity ratios, I would always use "gearing" anyway. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has this to say about "lever" the verb and "leverage" the verb:

Lever v. 1. a. To apply a lever; to work with a lever; 2. b. To make way by leverage; 3. a. To lift, push, or otherwise move with or as with a lever; also with along, away, out, over, up. Also refl. with into. b. To bring into a specified condition by applying a lever; hence 'levering'.

Leverage v. To lever; spec. to speculate or cause to speculate financially on borrowed capital expecting profits made to be greater than the interest payable. Hence leveraging vbl. n.; also leveraged ppl. a., freq. as leveraged buy-out (chiefly U.S.), the buy-out of a company by its management with the help of outside capital. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you don't want to leverage the diversity of the reference desks to create a dynamic synergy giving information solutions? 130.88.140.1 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't. I have to copywrite and edit all kinds of crap at the marketing/sales place where I work. At the moment I am going through a load of bumph diligently removing the dozens of references to 'look-and-feel', a term my line manager especially loves and I am 100% sure she will insist are put back in. Thanks for these answers, the question arose when my boss came to my desk and asked if he could put 'to leverage a sales force' in a memo. I told him to put 'to lever' and mentioned you couldn't lever a force anyway, but from the look he gave me I don't think he will change it. He is 6'8" too, so I'll let it slide. FreeMorpheme (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verbing weirds language. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read through an old edition of Strunk and White, and they disdained using the word "contact" as a verb in similar terms to Jack's above. I imagine in time nobody will bat an eye at "to leverage". --Sean 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against verbing providing it adds something. If 'to leverage' means exactly the same as 'to lever' then it seems a bit pointless to almost wilfully get it wrong. However I have nothing against 'party' as a verb, for instance. 195.60.20.81 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But don't 'to lever' and 'to leverage' have different meanings ? 'To lever' something means to apply a lever to it; 'to leverage' something means to use it as a lever i.e. to gain an additional advantage from it. Not saying there are always used correctly - but I think there is a difference. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that to gain an advantage from something would be to 'use the leverage' afforded by it, not 'to leverage' it. FreeMorpheme (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Sean, I will continue to bat my eyelids at hurricane speed whenever I see or hear it. We managed to get people to the Moon and back safely without ever having a need for this monstrosity, so why create a new word when there were - and still are - dozens of perfectly good ones to choose from. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to transition to another way of thinking about this. --Anon, only partly in jest, 22:35 UTC, April 15, 2008.

If you mean that one needs to be open to new words, ideas, concepts - that works for me, up to a point. I consider myself very open-minded; yes, even in linguistic matters. But there are some places where I draw the line. If I could hear a compelling argument why "leverage" fills a hole that no pre-existing well-known verb can fill, I'd reconsider my stance. (Make that 20 compelling arguments :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'starting crying '

I don't know why Denise starting crying when I mentioned the wedding.

Is the above sentence correct? I have read it from a native speaker, but the construction sounds so strange. 217.168.0.112 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "started crying" or "started to cry". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the speaker said "Denise started in crying?" Not correct, but rather common in U.S. English. Catrionak (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'correct'? I don't have that construction in my dialect, but my naive impression is that started in X-ing is a different grammatical aspect than started X-ing.

Anon, there is a slight aspectual difference between started to X and started X-ing as well. The former merely denotes the start of an action as an event, the transition from not crying to crying, whereas the latter is progressive and denotes an ongoing activity—it gives a picture of her crying once she's started. I can't think of an occasion where it would make much difference which you used, however.

Also, started X-ing is an extremely common construction. In colloquial speech, I think it is probably the most common way of saying that someone started doing something. kwami (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's more common in AmE than BrE, by corpus evidence. Jack^(Lumber) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invaginated meaning introverted

Can I say that 'someone is invaginated'? 217.168.0.112 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means 'introverted' only in the literal sense of being turned within yourself, and is normally only used in medicine and biology. I suppose a cartoon character who forms a cavity between his shoulders and pulls his head into it could be said to be invaginated, but I doubt anyone would understand what you mean. kwami (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a possible metaphorical meaning see Supplement, originary lack, and invagination. This has nothing to do with introversion either though. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami is right. SOED has this for invaginated:

Orig., inserted or received into a sheath or opening; esp. intussuscepted. Now usu., having undergone invagination, folded or pushed inwards to form a hollow.

And this for invagination:

Orig., the action of sheathing something; esp. intussusception. Now usu., the folding in of a surface or membrane to form a hollow cavity or pouch; the cavity so formed.

Of course any expression can be used metaphorically, but this one does not seem to have entrenched extended senses beyond those in SOED, despite this possibly misleading entry for invaginated in OED:

Inserted or received into a sheath; sheathed. b. Turned into a sheath. c. Introverted.

OED's examples do not support a psychological reading of introverted.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I've observed that extroverted fellows manage to get invaginated more often. --69.134.124.30 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably require surgery. kwami (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]