Language desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 25 >

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 24

French term « accuser un coup » — what does it mean?

Examples:

(1) La vénérable Mostra de Venise, 63 étés au compteur, accuse un coup de blues.
(2) Certains auraient accusé un coup. Pas Ariane Moffatt, qui s'est réjouie qu'un noyau plus qu'appréciable d'admirateurs soit prêt à la suivre même si elle faisait un disque à l'opposé du précédent.

Google Translate is unhelpful here (although it does know that “Mostra de Venise” means “Venice Film Festival”). Anybody know what this means? (Guesses are welcome too.) --Mathew5000 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a French dictionary, "Accuser le coup. Absol., Accuser. Laisser paraître qu'on est affecté d'une chose (au physique ou au moral)", so, kind of like "strike a pose", "give an air of", "appear as". (Accuser also means "show", along with the cognate of the English "accuse" - for example "accuser quelqu'un d'un coup" would mean "accuse someone of assault"). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Adam, the first sentence seems to say "has a case of the blues" whereas the second is more along the lines of "selling out". --Señor Purple (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I had not been aware that accuser in French had a second meaning in addition to accuse. In the second example, I don't think the meaning is tantamount to selling out, I think they are saying that because sales of her second CD were so much lower than sales of her first, you might expect her to show the signs of having taken a blow, or loosely you might expect her to appear rattled. --Mathew5000 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my French-English dictionary accuser le coup is "to stagger under the blow". Your understanding of the second example is right. — AldoSyrt (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This secondary meaning of accuser is not too remote from the familiar one that is reflected in the common English to accuse. The sense denounce shades into the sense announce. To declare, almost; or to bear witness (to, against, etc.). The summary form of the Petit Robert entry for accuser:

1 Signaler ou présenter (qqn) comme coupable (d'une faute, d'une action blâmable, d'un défaut).
2 Dr. Déférer (une personne soupçonnée d'un crime) devant la cour d'assises.
3 Signaler, rendre manifeste.
4 Fig. → indiquer, montrer, révéler.
5 (XVIIe) Faire ressortir, faire sentir avec force.

Senses 3 and 4 expanded:

3 Signaler, rendre manifeste. Relig. Accuser ses péchés. → confesser. — Accuser réception: donner avis qu'on a reçu. Accuser réception d'une lettre.
4 Fig. → indiquer, montrer, révéler. Rien dans son comportement n'accusait son désarroi. → trahir. Son visage accuse la fatigue, l'âge. Loc. fam. Accuser le coup: montrer par ses réactions qu'on est affecté, physiquement ou moralement.

Similar derivative senses turn up for Italian accusare and Spanish acusar as well; but as far as I can tell they are not present at the source: classical Latin accusare ("to accuse, to blame").

The word was used in these derivative ways in Middle French, according to Greimas's Dictionnaire du moyen français); but they are not recorded in his Dictionnaire de l'ancien français.

TLFi has a separate entry for these senses, and finds earliest uses in 10th-century French, founded on juridical Latin, supported by variations of the primary sense in earlier Latin.

Finally, as we might have expected for a Middle French legal usage, it is in fact present in English too. OED, "accuse, v.":

5. To betray, disclose. Hence, fig. to reveal, display, indicate, show, or make known. (Rare in mod.Eng., and when found, perhaps in imitation of mod.Fr., in which this is a common sense of accuser.)
c1400 Rom. Rose 1591 Right so the cristalle stoon shynyng, Withouten ony disseyvyng, The entrees of the yerde accusith. 1477 Earl Rivers Dictes (Caxton) 29 Withoute he wolde accuse them that wer consenting to make werre ayenst the King. 1580 Sidney Arcadia ii. 124 The Princes did in their countenances accuse no points of fear. 1649 Milton Eikon. Wks. 1738 I. 376 This wording was above his known Stile and Orthography, and accuses the whole composure to be conscious of some other Author. 1658 Reliq. Wotton. (1672) 362, I cannot (according to the Italian phrase)+accuse the receit of any Letter from you. 1864 Crowe & Cavalcaselle Painting in Italy II. xxi. 523 The distribution of the scene accuses an absence of motive or thought.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do you pronouce ayelie?

portuguese translation request

I need to translate some text for a business advert from english into portuguese - this afternoon (24th april 2008).

can anyone help? I will not be able to pay for this service.

thanks Spiggy 83.104.131.135 (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translators in your area. WikiJedits (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyuan languages#Writing_system

Nowadays, perceived as "dialects", Ryukyuan languages are not often written. When they are, Japanese letters are used in an ad hoc manner.

Before Japanese annexation etc. etc., were Japanese letters used adhocly?68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the writing system is not ad hoc. It is actually phonetic, which is more than can be said for Japanese. In fact, the Ryukyu dialect preserves sounds and letters which are not used in modern Japanese.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, could you give me a list of letters "...which are not used in modern Japanese"? If you can't could you point me to somewhere I can?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the actual letters are basically 'wi', 'we', and 'yi' and 'ye', which you can find in a decent Japanese dictionary, but if you are interested in the language itself, try here. This has some info on the Shuri dialect.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Shur[reply]

Thanks; what graphemes were used to represent "...'wi', 'we', and 'yi' and 'ye'..."?68.148.164.166 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move your questions around. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ゐ・ゑ・ゐ for the first three, and for some reason my PC won't let me write 'ye', even though it is still used in some cases, far much more than the other three (as in 'yen' and 'yebisu' (the best beer in Japan)).--ChokinBako (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a yi in Japanese, and ye disappeared before the creation of hiragana. You won't find them in any dictionary. Okinawan writing system does not discuss the pre-annexation writing system, only ad hoc competing modern conventions. It would be interesting to know how the Old Shuri kana system worked. —kwami (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there never was a 'yi', then why does my PC have a hiragana for 'yi'? True, though, I've only ever seen 'ye' in katakana.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post an image? If it's really "yi", it isn't for Japanese. kwami (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ゐ I assure you it is Japanese. --ChokinBako (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's wi in Japanese. In one of the several ad-hoc Okinawan orthographies it's used as /i/ ([i] is not distinguished from [ji] in Okinawan, just as in Japanese), where it contrasts with <い> for /ʔi/. kwami (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! My mistake. I just read my original reply and found it appeared twice in my list. Sorry, it was late at night, or something. You are right, though. I have not been able to find 'yi'.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I'm confused?68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: ゐ・ゑ are obsolete kana for wi, we. There never have been kana for yi or wu, and ye disappeared before kana were graphically distinct from kanji. (The man'yōgana for ye were 曳延要遥叡兄江吉枝). kwami (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The article says 具遇隅求愚虞 were used for wu, but I find that doubtful. kwami (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Fuzzy

Does the British slang used by Mac Manc McManx in Get Fuzzy actually make sense to an Brit. English speaker? example here. Dismas|^(talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm hardly down with the kids these days, and only some of it makes sense to me. "Defo" is fairly common shorthand for "definitely" and "bobbins" just means "rubbish", but it's very unlikely that the same speaker would use both words - they're in a different register, if you see what I mean. As for the rest of it, I'm as much in the dark as you are. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure, take a butcher's, e's got us bang t' rights, darn to a tee an' no mistake, innit ? (Actually, it's about as realistic as Dick van Dyke's cockney). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, this is a comic strip that features talking dogs, cats, and ferrets, and you're complaining that their use of slang is unrealistic??? —An gr 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get a straight answer? I don't know if the artist of the strip has spent any time at all with Brit English speakers. I haven't spent enough time with any to make any sense of it. I'm simply asking if it actually makes sense. So, does it? Can we put aside the fact that were talking about a comic and just answer the question? Richardrj, you're fine. You were honest in how much you could recognize and such. You others, I have only to guess about your answers. Should I take it that DvD's cockney was horrible and so is this? Since I don't know about this strip, what makes you think that I'd understand your reference to DvD? Dismas|^(talk) 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me spell it out for you. A few of the words make some sort of sense in isolation, but the way they are put together makes little or no sense, and no-one actually speaks anything like this in real life. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain it is widely known that Dick van Dyke spoke laughably poor cockney, and people rarely think of whether things that well-known to the point of illustrative comparison in their community might be unknown elsewhere. Combined with the textual clues of the phrase 'it's about as realistic as...', it is reasonable for Gandalf to have expected you to have understood the point being made; it is ridiculous language. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with Dismas. Gandalf's initial posting was unhelpful and it would have been better if he had led off with his second (minus the "let me spell it out for you" - that's what we should be doing anyway). As for Dick van Dyke, I'm British and I've never seen Mary Poppins. I have a vague notion of why he was brought up in this context, but I wouldn't have dreamed of using him for illustrative comparison. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to Dick van Dyke is completely explained in the Dick van Dyke article itself, for anyone who makes the effort to follow the link: "Van Dyke's attempt at a cockney accent (lapsing out of it at times) was nonetheless widely ridiculed and is still frequently parodied. It is still often cited as one of the worst attempts at a southern English accent by an American actor". Gandalf61 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, drawing upon my scant knowledge of well known local slang it would appear to say "I'm avoiding it. They're very old fashioned, definitely. Very annoying" and "throw them away, they're crap". Of course, I'm from Wiltshire which has it's own dialect so this could all be Mizzy-mazey or Nunny-fudged and I could be coming across all zammy. 81.79.77.50 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in case you're wondering, todays strip seems to be "I've been working, in LA" - "Had to leave because I had no money. It got very bad" and "I got beaten (attacked/assaulted), which was crap". 81.79.77.50 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood it all perfectly.hotclaws 21:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! :-) Dismas|^(talk) 22:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The slang mixes register of period and place. "Mithering" is an old Lancashire or Yorkshire word (don't kill me, o folk of the Roses) while "innit" and "pants" are southeastern youth slang. SaundersW (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation conundrum

Hi, wikipeoples. If the following sentences are correct:

"Where is my dog?" she said as she slapped him.

"There's my dog!" she said as she hugged him.

Then why isn't this one correct?

"There's my dog." she said as she shook his hand.

Or is that one correct too? As I understand it, it would be correct if it said "There's my dog", she said... but it seems to me that putting it like that either (a) makes it feel like the subject speaking still has more to say instead of having finished, or (b) it lightens up what the subject was saying (IMO with a change of pitch that commas provide in a conversation), instead of showing it like a blunt statement that ends with a full stop. (Perhaps (b) doesn't apply clearly within the context of my example, but it happens nonetheless). Is there a way to solve this, or is this just how it is? (Please try to generalize and not only fix the example I gave you :) Kreachure (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC) PS. Sorry if something like this was asked before.[reply]

I've been taught that <_." X said> is incorrect. It should be <_," X said> probably because it should be grammatically equal to <X said "_>. We don't have a way of graphically indicating comma ?/! and full stop ?/! and I believe this is the only time that the difference is important. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. What is the rule that impedes me from using a period there? Is "no comma ?/! or full stop ?/!" the grammatical justifications for this? Is it then impossible to say that without a comma? Kreachure (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal to use a comma, though sometimes you'll see this without any punctuation mark. Periods cannot occur in the middle of a sentence, period. Exclamation marks and question marks can:

Is it good in form? style? meaning?

and they're necessary to convey the quotation. The period isn't considered necessary. kwami (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rule is rubbish. My advice to Kreachure: go ahead and write as you like, usage makes the language. If you and plenty of other people just ignore this rule, it will become extinct and periods at the end of a quote will be the accepted way to punctuate quotations within 30 years. --Lgriot (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, of all places, I didn't expect to find a Linguistics freethinker here. I too think this rule is rather unjustified, and even hindering in some cases where you just cannot replace the period in a quote without changing the intention of it. Well, I'll get right on to it! Expect results in a few decades! :) Kreachure (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very often hard to justify an entrenched principle of punctuation, but in this case it can be done easily enough. The sentence-ending marks in English are . , ! , and ? , but ! and ? do not always end sentences, while in its sentence-punctuating uses . does always end a sentence. While we're at it, not all sentences need a sentence-ender: "nested" sentences in brackets often have neither a capital at the start nor a sentence-ender. Consider these examples:

He lost twelve kilograms (!) in six weeks.
The question Why me? came back to her again and again.
We'll be there (such a happy thought!) in three days.
I too am a victim (well, at least I am a witness) of such pedantry.

Now, whether you like these or not, they occur in writing; and well they might, because people say such things, and writing must be able to record them. Written forms like these are all supported in grammars and style guides – but excuse me, please, from the task of laboriously retrieving the evidence.

I disagree with Lgriot's advice. Do what you like in your personal diary. But in public? If you use a sentence-punctuating full stop (as opposed to one marking abbreviation and the like) with the following text not being a new capitalised sentence, expect disapproval and the consequences of disapproval. That's just how it is, in the real world.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's more what I was (regretfully) expecting :). You still didn't tell me how to fix the type of sentence I gave you with the period. You're right on the money when you say that writing must be able to record what people say, so how would you handle a sentence that must end with a period and not a comma or whatever (as I tried to explain before)? That's a challenge not for the real world, but for writers. Kreachure (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was already dealt with! This is the standard way:

"There's my dog," she said as she shook his hand.

Serious writers (who generally do live in the real world) nearly all do it that way. If they do not, an editor will generally fix their punctuation.

In short, there are several contexts in which sentences are not furnished with sentence-ending punctuation. A "nested" parenthetic sentence is one such context; this sort of quotation is another. In these, the exclamation mark and the question mark are not used as sentence enders (if they were, the following word would be capitalised):

"There's my dog!" she said as she shook his hand.

"Where's my dog?" she asked as she shook his hand.

They are used to mark an exclamation and a question, but not to mark the ends of sentences.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that it might be more logically consistent, I guess it would "look funny" and be a bit cumbersome if we did it like this:

"Where's my dog?" she asked.

"Where's my dog?". She asked everyone present the same question.

"There's my dog!" she said.

"There's my dog!". She said she was a hamster too.

If we refused to accept the question mark or exclamation point as sentence endings, it might even lead to writing things like:

Why did he do that?.

It was destiny!.

And that could get scary. I'm not sure how sarcastic I am being, so decide for yourself. --Prestidigitator (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logical consistency does not play a great role in such matters. Certain forms have become acceptable; others have not. May I provide a gentle reminder that this is a Reference Desk, and not a place to give approval to non-standard forms of expression, or to make it up as we go along. Style guides differ on a range of issues, but I guarantee that none of them would give an imprimatur to "There's my dog." she said as she shook his hand., or to the last 2 examples from Prestidigitator. There's no law that says you can't punctuate your sentences any damn way you please, but divert from the norms and you should expect, at the very least, raised eyebrows from your readers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

I did a spell check while typing on the "word" program on an article and the word "dining" and then "dinning" with two "n"s was accepted by spell-check. Which is the correct or preferred spelling, please? thanks Eleanor (email address redacted to prevent spam)

If you mean 'dining' as in eating, then it's the first one. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It depends which word you mean. If you mean dining as in eating dinner, it's "dining" with one "n" (one at a time, at any rate). If you mean dinning as in repeating something to someone over and over until they finally get it, or as in making a lot of noise, it's "dinning" with two "n"s (in a row, followed by a third one later in the word). —An gr 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's a valid word, it's a good idea to remove it from your spellchecker. I've removed from mine words such as bot, cam, cos, nay, tine, etc because they will almost always be misspellings of more familiar words.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew translation: What does it means?

סקרנית, אינטיליגנטית , andמשהו —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltnVinegar (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

משהו mashehu means "something". סקרנית sakranit is the feminine form of the adjective "curious". אינטיליגנטית I presume is a typo for אינטליגנטית inteligentit, which is the feminine form of "intelligent". Macnas (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To twist a rope of sand

Hi, we are some French guys wondering about the origin of the english expression 'to twist a rope of sand' (or : 'a cord of sand'). We found a reference in John Stuart Blackie's works, but we think it might be older than that. Any hints ? Thanks in advance. 89.83.23.161 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Waldo Emerson, contemporary of Blackie, also used the expression. --Diacritic (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns up in Ralph Waldo Emerson (see above), but he is a contemporary of Blackie on the other side of the ocean.

Googling indicates that it goes back to the ancient Greeks, where it was a term for adynaton (impossible task) associated with Ariadne´s thread, a sort of state-space methodology deployed in problem solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OED has this (at "rope, n.¹"):

II 5. [...] b. a rope of sand, something having no coherence or binding power.
1624 Gataker Transubst. 152 Like ropes of sand (as wee are wont to say) doe these things hang together. 1670 Clarendon Contempl. Ps. Tracts (1727) 583 Which destroys all possible security and confidence in this rope of sand, which Tradition is. 1780 Gouv. Morris in Sparks Life & Writ. (1832) I. 222 Our union will become a mere rope of sand. 1800 J. Adams Wks. (1854) IX. 87 Sweden and Denmark, Russia and Prussia, might form a rope of sand, but no dependence can be placed on such a maritime coalition. 1894 F. M. Elliot Roman Gossip iv. 124 The alliance fell through of itself like a rope of sand.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I understood it indeed as some task impossible to fulfill, but I had never heard it in French. Sounds nice anyway. 81.93.10.190 (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History book madness!

"Arkon Nopo Fromolo Derexono Dalomn Daso Okedesuke"

This bit of jibberish has been mentioned in my Asian History* textbook as being some sort of old japanese proverb... But, "Arkon"!? "Derexono"!? I don't recall those OR "Dalomn" being even REMOTELY japanese... Furthermore, The translation isn't even mentioned!** Could someone help me out here, because, I think my school needs new books if this isn't japanese... the book is: "History of the eastern world"

There IS a footnote, although it cites "multiple possible translations" as the reason why it has no translation in the book 22.134.234.412 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daso Okedesuke is at least potentially Japanese. The rest cannot be. kwami (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]