Language desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

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.

January 13

A request to review Zen

I cannot read Japanese or Chinese. Zen did not mention the Chinese term "Chan" or "Ch'an," so I added it. There are a number of words in other Asian languages that are certainly notable and the wiktionary articles on them seem confusing. I changed Zen to account for this, based on what I have seen. Please review it.

Also, from what I have read, Shin (see Shin Buddhism) is another transliteration of Zen\Ch'an, with Jodo Shinshu just being one form of this. If so, Shin Buddhism should redirect to Zen, with a disambig tag that mentions Jodo Shinshu. Zenwhat (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be best discussed at the talk page of the relevant article. There are some very good editors there, and this is a topic that is not easy to describe. Just because one term is a transliteration of another it doesn't mean the topics are identical. Also it's a good idea to use the preview button to check your edits rather than make lots of edits at the same time. See also Wikipedia:Peer review.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any substantial changes to Zen and have been slowly working on some stuff over at User:Zenwhat/Sandbox before putting it up. My question has nothing to do with content. I just want to know: Are the Asian characters used correct? Zenwhat (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

Please translate this passage: et ne fiat contentio de nomine univocationis, conceptum univocum dico, qui ita est unus, quod ejus unitas sufficit ad contradictionem, affirmando et negando ipsum de eodem. Sufficit etiam pro medio syllogistico, ut extrema unita in medio sic uno, sine fallacia aequivocationis, concludantur inter se unum (Copleston, Vol. II, p. 502). --Omidinist (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"And lest there be disagreement about the word univocatio: I apply the term univocal to a concept that is one (unus) insofar as its unity allows for contradiction, by affirming or denying it about the same subject. It suffices, moreover, as the middle term in a syllogism, since the extreme terms so united by one middle, without the fallacy of equivocation, are between themselves enclosed as one." Deor (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can just about struggle through the first sentence in its English form, but the second one has me stumped. I am sure the translation is excellent, but I have no idea what it means. Is anyone out there able to help me? Bielle (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the syllogism

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The extreme (major and minor) terms—that is, the two concepts to be compared—are "mortal" and "Socrates". The middle term is "man/men", which, used univocally as it is here, suffices to "enclose" or "embrace" the extreme terms and produce a valid conclusion.

Now consider this one:

Man is a word.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is a word.

Because the middle term is a concept used equivocally (in one place as a word and in the other to refer to the thing the word denotes), it fails to unite the extreme terms.

More context would be useful in determining whether I've interpreted the Latin correctly, but that's my best guess. The changes the author rings on unus and uni- words are pretty much untranslatable. Deor (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, Deor. It is as clear as possible. Thanks so much. --Omidinist (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Thank you, Deor. Bielle (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hound of the Baskervilles

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, what is the first name of Stapleton, the naturalist, or does he have none? Spencer^T♦^C 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and if you get sucked in and die in a Moorland, would it be called "drowning" in a moor, like being drowned by quicksand? Spencer^T♦^C 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the fake identity, his name seems to be Jack Stapleton:

Stapleton had abandoned the chase and came back to us breathing hard and flushed with his exertions.

"Halloa, Beryl!" said he, and it seemed to me that the tone of his greeting was not altogether a cordial one.

"Well, Jack, you are very hot."

SPOILER WARNING: Of course, his real name was something else, as "He was a son of that Rodger Baskerville, the younger brother of Sir Charles, who fled with a sinister reputation to South America, where he was said to have died unmarried. He did, as a matter of fact, marry, and had one child, this fellow, whose real name is the same as his father's.". Not sure whether this means his first name was "Rodger", or whether "the same as his father's" merely refers to the surname. ---

Thank you, but I have a follow-up question. I'm writing an obituary for him in school, so should I refer to him as Jack Stapleton, Rodger Baskerville, Rodger Stapleton or Jack Baskerville? And I found the answer to my second question. Spencer^T♦^C 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For his obituary, I would suggest something like "Jack Stapleton, (born Rodger Baskerville), schoolmaster, antiquarian and murderer, has disappeared and is presumed dead... " DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to mention that he (and his wife, née Beryl Garcia) had assumed yet another surname, Vandeleur, before becoming the Stapletons. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, questions like this should be placed on the Humanities reference desk. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"To Be"

Why is the verb "to be" so irregular in a lot of languages? For Instance look at:

Spanish: Ser (Edited) Ancient Greek: Eimi Latin: Sum

Is their some type of social/cultural importance to this irregularity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.52.92 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was very helpful, but is their any reason why the word "to be" is so irregular. I mean, considering it is one of the most commonly used human words, wouldn't one think it would be the most simple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.52.92 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article Indo-European copula referred to in the earlier discussion? Deor (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't know if I can answer why, but it has been commonly observed in languages that the most common words are the ones most likely to be irregular. Perhaps their very commonness makes their irregular forms easier to remember, whereas uncommon forms tend to regularize because you're more likely to have to mentally "build them from scratch" each time you use them. Interestingly, although the verb "to be" is irregular in virtually every modern Indo-European language, it has been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European as a regular verb. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, ir in Spanish is "to go". "To be" is ser and estar. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this generalises to other languages, but in English the forms of 'to be' derive (according to the OED) from three originally separate verbs, meaning something like 'to be', 'to remain' and 'to become'. Algebraist 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the English forms of "to be" go back to at least three separate early roots: an Indo-European es- or s- root, an Indo-European bhu- or bheu- root, and an Indo-European wes- root. Whether or not some of the forms with an "r" consonant but without a "w" go back to yet a fourth early root has been debated... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a number of languages pretty much lack verbs for "to be" and "to have" -- or to be more precise, many of the functions which are done with BE and HAVE verbs in Germanic and Romance languages are done in other ways. As far as a present-tense copula meaning goes, it's actually more common among the languages of the world NOT to require a finite verb form to be present to express this meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example (of a language without an explicit "to be" verb), in Hebrew the verb "to be" is assumed in the present tense if nothing is present, although a verb is used for other tenses. D aniel (‽) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is disrespect a word?

I hear it so often, but is disrespect really a word? I found it in some online dictionary, actually quite a few, but I also found words like ain't and ya'll. My english grammer isn't the best, can you please tell me why it is or isn't a word. Thanks 70.49.119.82 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Jeff[reply]

All "what constitutes a word?" discussion aside, yes. As a verb, it means to not give respect, and as a noun, it means lack of respect, and it is appropriate to use in formal English. HYENASTE 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a word. Ain't and y'all are also words, they're just nonstandard. Strad (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe in weight of years in these matters, then disrespect has been in the language since at least the 17th century. Algebraist 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to Merriam-Webster, the verb form of the word dates from 1621, while the noun form dates from 1624. I wonder if somebody can provide citations from the OED, or something more detailed than m-w.com --LarryMac | Talk 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's interesting; the Concise OED claims the verb form is "informal, chiefly N Amer". I haven't a full Oxford at home, unfortunately... Gwinva (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big dic (OED) shows the earliest dates for both the noun and the verb in the early seventeenth century, and nothing later than nineteenth century for either. Despite that, I think we'd all agree that the noun is in current use in all registers. I'm not so sure about the verb, at least with its current meaning, which corresponds to that of "diss", to actively express disrespect, especially an instance of that. The meaning in the OED is seen in a citation from 1885, "You will judge whether he disrespects me." The word seems to have meant something more like "not respect" in its former incarnation. So, I'd have to agree with the Concise OED that it is informal (but I doubt it will stay informal long). --Milkbreath (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the modern word "diss" means "disrespect" Sandman30s (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Night" and "eight"

My sister's ex-workmate's boyfriend told me that in every Indo-European language, the words for "eight" and "night" are similar.

English: night - eight
German: Nacht - acht
Swedish: natt - åtta
French: nuit - huit
Spanish: noche - ocho

This does not extend to non-Indo-European languages:

Finnish: kahdeksan - yö
Estonian: kaheksa - öö
Russian: something - something (right, so I don't know any Russian.)

Just these two words having a similar structure throughout the Indo-European languages, both the Germanic and the Latin branches, is incredibly bizarre. Is this genuinely true for all Indo-European languages, and if so, why? Is it some strange relation or just a coincidence? JIP | Talk 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most comparative linguists accept that the Indo-European languages are all descended from what is referred to as Proto-Indo-European, and in that case 'coincidence' and 'bizarre' are over-stated. 'Night' and 'eight' started out close together and have retained their similiarities. Xn4 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Russian (ночь - восемь) is an Indo-European language. Old English had niht - eahta, Romanian has noapte - opt, Welsh has nos - wyth, and Slavic languages seem to be exempt. It looks like it's really specific to Germanic languages, Spanish, and maybe Italian. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In our alphabet, those Russian words are 'noch' and 'vosem', so evidently in Russian they have drifted farther apart. Xn4 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian: notte, otto, Croatian: noć, osam. It is beginning to look as though the words are further apart in Slavic languages than Romance or Germanic. SaundersW (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek: νύχτα, οχτώ (nuchta, ochto, my transcription)SaundersW (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese noite and oito. What is more interesting is that [t] remains in all of them, ~~while [n] phases out of the Romance languages~~. HYENASTE 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ha, whatchoo mean "[n] phases out"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I guess I was trying to say two things at once. HYENASTE 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, according to Wiktionary, the PIE roots are *H₁oḱtō(u) (eight) and *nekw-t- (night). Algebraist 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that the Slavic terms have to do with something other than "drifting" apart. It's possible that the Slavic word for eight is not cognate with other IE words for eight. Consider that the only difference between Russian seven (semj) and eight (vosemj) is the "vo". Could they have lost the word for eight and then had to come up with a new one? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than loss, it could be that the original word for eight became (through regular sound change) too similar to some other common word, perhaps eye. —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about that. Think about English: won/one, to/too/two, for/four, sicks/six, ate/eight. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the nature of irregular processes that they don't always happen. (Quibble: would you call sicks a common word?) —Tamfang (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, восемь/vosem' is in fact cognate with "eight". In Proto-Slavic it was *осмь/*osmь. The /m/ came by analogy with the word *осмъ/*osmъ "eighth", since the ordinals for several other numbers were identical to the cardinal except for the final vowel (in the nominative singular, that is). Macnas (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]