Language desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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.

November 6

English to Latin or vice versa translation site?

Can anybody recommend a good site for machine translation from English to Latin and vice versa? Thank you.

There aren't any. Machines are terrible at translating Latin. The best you can do is individual words, like William Whitaker's Words program (here), but even that will give you impossible words (and the English to Latin program is very bad). Othewise you'll have to slug it out the hard way and just learn the language. It's worked for 3000 years! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3000? What are you counting as the beginning? —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I don't know. 2500 years then? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that takes it back to 500BC, and Rome was founded before then, and Latin must have existed before it was first written anyway, so I think 3000 years would be a decent guess.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin of 500 B.C. was very different from later standardized Classical Latin -- see Duenos Inscription -- and there's little evidence of written Latin language literature as such (as opposed to legal record-keeping, religious ritual record-keeping, and property marking inscriptions) until ca. 250 BC... AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, people haven't been translating Latin to English (or v.v.) for anywhere near that long. :P —Tamfang (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'd need a language called English to translate the Latin into. It was barely crawling out of its linguistic cradle 300 years after the fall of the empire. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ant and ent words (mainly adjectives)

We often see –ant words misspelled with –ent: relevant, resultant, resistant > relevent, resultent, resistent.

And we often see –ent words mispelled with –ant: ambient, consistent, independent, deficient, coherent, competent > ambiant, consistant, independant, deficiant, coherant, competant. There are lots of other examples. Although, certain words seem immune, because I’ve never seen significant or important spelled with –ent, or president spelled with –ant.

I guess some people are naturally better spellers than others, or somehow got the right spellings into their heads at an early age. I count myself lucky that I’m in that category; when I see the wrong spelling, it immediately hits me in the eye. But others don’t seem to quite know which way to jump with some words. Is there some guide that lists all the –ant and –ent words with their correct spellings, and, more importantly, explains why some are –ant and others are –ent? In the absence of that, is there a failsafe method to work out which way to go, or is it ultimately down to memory? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-ant words come from Latin a-stem verbs ("first conjugation"), or sometimes from French verbs; -ent words come from the other three Latin paradigms. So if you have a Latin dictionary handy you take the word in question, replace the {ae}nt with o (because Latin dictionaries list verbs by the "I do" form, which ends in o), and see whether the next form has -are or something else. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you may have to try eo as well as o. —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much down to memory. It would certainly be handy if we had adopted all these words directly from Latin, so that we'd know to use a in words derived from first-conjugation verbs and e in words derived from verbs of other conjugations. That rule works for some of the words you cite and for certain others; but, unfortunately, some of these words come to us through French, in which, for example, résistence (which is what one would expect from Latin resistere) had been changed to résistance before we got hold of it. Learning the detailed history underlying the spelling of each word is considerably harder than just learning how to spell each by rote, I think. Deor (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can get worse, too. In the usual British spelling, "dependent" is only an adjective while the corresponding noun is "dependant". American spelling usually has the first spelling for both parts of speech. --Anonymous, 08:42 UTC, November 6, 2008.

Oh yes, I know about that one all too well. In a previous life, I worked in an organisation that had members, some in their own right, and some by virtue of being dependent children of adult members. Those dependent children were called dependants. I couldn't tell you how often we had discussions about the correct spelling of these words. One faction wanted to keep it simple and have -ant for both words; the other faction, to which I belonged, fought a running battle to keep the distinction. My faction was usually successful, but now that I've moved on, I fear the debate may also have moved on, but not necessarily in a forward direction. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. Not sure whether it's worth anything but after a bit of a rant from the author, it provides a number of rules and exceptions. For example, if the root ends in a -ist, it takes -ent (excluding assistant and resistant). Now if only I could remember all that! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That is actually the most helpful thing I've seen on this topic. It works for me, although how I'd ever teach others that complex rule and all its exceptions would be another story. I particularly like Gritchka's trick: evidential can only come from evident, not evidant. Pity it doesn't apply to the most commonly misspelled examples, though. Thanks very much, Zain. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant clichés

Watching the news and reading any variety of literature, I see what seems to be a plague of redundant repetitions (pun intended), like "visible to the eye," "added bonus," "close proximity," and the most annoying, "past history." So I'm wondering - is it redundant to say "as of yet"? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's not only redundant but also incorrect in itself. The standard form is "as of X", where X is a date, a year, or the word "now" or some synonym. You can also say that something has "not yet happened" or "not happened yet" but not "as of yet, it hasn't happened". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing you said "seems to be". "Visible to the eye" contrasts with things like "visible to ground-penetrating radar" or "visible in a microscope". "Past history" can mean the history of a period that ends in the past as opposed to one that is still continuing. "Added bonus" and "close proximity" may be overused, but they basically serve as emphatic forms, and there's nothing wrong with those in principle. And "as of yet" may not be an idiom recognized by Jack as of yet, but it's natural to me, logical or not. --Anonymous, 08:50 UTC, November 6, 2008.

Hello Anonymous: To you, does "as of yet" mean anything different than "as of now"? CBHA (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a different implication. "As of now" may refer to a present situation that either contrasts with the past or might contrast with the future. "As of yet" has only the second implication. It is, I think, the same as one sense of the simple "yet", or "as yet", as noted below. As of now, no black people in the US are legally slaves; as of yet, none of them has ever been president. You could use "now" in the second clause, but you could not use "yet" in the first, unless you were contemplating slavery becoming legal again. --Anonymous, 18:25 UTC, November 7, 2008.

The expression "as yet", meaning up to the present time, is fully accepted everywhere, and maybe some places have their own variant "as of yet". That may have become a local idiom, but it seems as unnecessary as the highlighted word in "if you hadn't have turned up, I don't know what I would have done". -- JackofOz (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose it's subjective? Personally, I find it a bit colloquial and unprofessional. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find Never an Adult Moment by the Austin Lounge Lizards, with the marvelous song, "Big Rio Grande River."

High up on Table Mesa

I feel your nearness close to me

As the evening sun sets in the west...

--- OtherDave (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz! You write:

The expression "as yet", meaning up to the present time, is fully accepted everywhere...

Not on my watch it ain't. No sir Bob! I'm with Gowers, in his general judgement concerning as:

As has other sins of superfluity imputed to it, besides the help it gives in building up verbose and superfluous prepositions and conjunctions [...] Dr Ballard writes: [']The word as has acquired a vogue in official circles. Wherever as can be put in, in it goes.['] (Complete Plain Words)

I'm with Ballard and Gowers. I never use as yet, as of, as per, or as regards; and I can always easily find another way to say what is to be said. To me these asinine impositions are comparable to thusly (along with most uses of thus), whilst, prior to as a substitute de rigueur for before, individual as a substitute for person, and the ubiquitous on a _____ly basis. Blemishes on the civilisation of our time. Yes, I'm with Gowers, the eminent Dr Ballard, and that mighty man of letters Lord Conesford, who in July 1957 wrote to the Saturday Evening Post in ringingly righteous terms:

Let me now turn to the strange American delusion that the words "as of" can always be used before a date as if they were a temporal preposition... An additional illiteracy is introduced when the words "as of" precede not a date, but the adverb "now". "As of now" is a barbarism which only a love of illiteracy for its own sake can explain. What is generally meant is "at present". (Immortalised in M-W's Concise Dictionary of English Usage)

The M-W folk dwell for more than an entire dense column on as of, holding in the end that as of now is acceptable in America. Well, good luck to them. That is not the last word, though – not if Conesford and I are a united voice crying in the wilderness.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck to you, my friend, if you think that the words of a British peer in Anthony Eden's or Harold Macmillan's still teddibly conservative 1957 Britain are somehow particularly relevant to the globalised 21st century. An entire Atlantic Ocean has flown under the linguistic bridge since then. I think we can agree that "as of __" is accepted nowadays, at least in many parts and by many people. Of course, it doesn't always mean "up to the present time" or "at present", because it can sometimes mean "up to that time", e.g. "As of 1943, Ilgenfritz had not yet even started his first opera". I agree it's not particularly distinguished style, but in less than very formal contexts it's ok. My only real issue is with adding "yet" to "as of", about which I am entirely in agreement with La Pianista that it's contraindicated. Pace Anonymous. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O Conesford, spring to my aid! Of course you are right when you say " 'as of __' is accepted nowadays, at least in many parts and by many people". Sheesh, so is a phenomena. So is thusly, so is overly, and so are whilst, concur, and prior to, whenever a sage gloss of gravity is sought on the cheap. Like bowerbirds, many of will gather for our own use fragments of word-tinsel spotted in others' idiolects and in recherché registers. Constructions of the as family, spawned in Managementsprache, are particularly attractive. They offer a spurious cachet of precision without the hard work; and their elements are cosily familiar stuff. But beware. They're for the birds.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tot seffens in belgium mean?

if i type in " tot seffens" in the english version--there isn't a page. but if i type it in the netherlands version---there is a page but it's in danish even though it says translated into english. how can i read it in english? it's a local way of saying bye--i think. i want to read the page in english, know what it means and hopefully find out the history of the phrase since in our country seffens is a surname. thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 934pen (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The Netherlands version of what? There isn't a page at nl:Tot seffens, so you don't mean the Dutch version of Wikipedia. —An gr 07:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to have an entry on Wiktionary either (which, going by your description, would be a more appropriate place), in either English or Dutch. -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, according to nl:Wikipedia:Belgisch-Nederlands, seffens is a Belgian-Dutch word for straks, and according to wikt:straks#Dutch, straks means "later today", so I conjecture that tot seffens is a Belgian-Dutch way of saying "See you later (today)". In other words, if I'm right, the OP is also right when he says "it's a local way of saying bye". But I still don't know what page he found that's "in danish even though it says translated into english". —An gr 13:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native speakers of British English needed!

I wrote an article about a Singaporean politician, Denise Phua. Within several days, the article should be ready for a GA nomination, but there is an issue regarding British English usage that needs to be resolved first. We need native speakers of British English to participate in the discussion and give their input. Please do not let comments by others mislead you. The issue is not whether British English should be used (everyone agrees it should), but how serial commas and collective nouns are handled in British English. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serial commas are known in UK English as Oxford commas, because they are endorsed by Oxford University Press. In others words: yes, serial commas are often used in UK English, and are essential in situations which might otherwise be ambiguous. (See Serial comma#Usage, which outlines the mandatory/not mandatory opinions: you will see there no simple geographical split.) As for collective nouns, if they are considered as a unit, then they are treated as singular. If the context treats them as a collection of individuals, then use a plural. eg. The government has raised the taxes by 10% this year; the cabinet are divided on the issue. Gwinva (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch horn

The expression "lunch horn" was recently used in the Humanities Ref Desk, by Kainaw from memory. I don't know if I'm unique in this respect, but there's something about the juxtaposition of those two words that to me is unpleasant, sinister and menacing. I'm aware I really do have a surprisingly strong emotional reaction to it, although I'm otherwise unaffected. Does anyone else experience this sort of thing with mere words, and can you provide some examples? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get something like that with "ethnic cleansing" but it's probably not the same kind of thing. --WikiSlasher (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Toynbee gets it whenever she hears the words 'compassionate conservatism'... Sorry bit of a low blow. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because they suggest similar rhyming words with unpleasant meanings? Like, "hunch[back] born" or "punch[drunk] morn" or some such?--Eriastrum (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually always had an aversion to the word 'lunch'. For some reason, it reminds me of crispy lettuce, which I actually LOVE!! No logic at all in my aversion to the word! Perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that we in the North of England say 'dinner' instead of 'lunch'. Evening meals we call 'tea', whether we drink tea with it or not.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me! Listen to me! That's interesting The discussion was actually about a horn Afghanistan banana stand being called the "lunch bell". Maybe your reaction is Queen of Diamonds deeper than you realize. Saintrain (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 out of 10 for the most enigmatic post of the month, Saintrain. Explanation?

I had a similar, although less negative, reaction to our old friend the Beastorn, which is why I was so determined to find out its history (and I'm still none the wiser). I notice these both end in -orn, and I wonder if there's some connection or if it's purely coincidental. Maybe I'm just an ornery guy. Or maybe I need to talk to a psychiatrist. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Words That End In orn : Words That End With orn. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Queen of Diamonds" alludes to The Manchurian Candidate. (Fnord.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ipcress File, The Hot Rock and The Manchurian Candidate all dealt with post-hypnotic actions triggered by a phrase or object. Saintrain (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Explain all that,' said the Mock Turtle.

'No, no! The adventures first,' said the Gryphon in an impatient tone: 'explanations take such a dreadful time.'

- - CBHA (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did something worrying happen to you when the lunch horn sounded at school? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not that odd, Jack. It's merely a type of synesthesia. (If I'm allowed to diagnose on the Ref Desk.) Gwinva (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's simply because horns that announce something to a mass are at best located in factories, and at worst signal fire alarms or announce lockdown in a prison? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong emotional reaction to the phrase "left wing media", in that I want to stick my left foot up the left asshole of whoever uses it. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I hear the word Cod liver oil, or even think of it, I start coughing. I'm literally unable to say "tran" without coughing. "Tran" is the Norwegian name for the vile liquid, that I was forced to swallow a spoonful of, every morning, as a child. (* Coughing while typing - honest! *) --NorwegianBlue^talk 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's interesting, the phrase "piti ribje olje", literaly: "to drink fish oil" (i.e. "to drink cod liver oil") has only survived as an idiom in Slovene - it means being forced to do something particularly nasty, and is basically accompanied by exactly the same unsavoury images you describe. If this is not too personal, how old are you? I'm shyly stepping into my thirties - is this a generation gap thing, or are cultural differences involved? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty-two. (* Still coughing *) --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Phonaesthetics and Sound symbolism. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suffer from disabilities of the sort discussed here. If I hear a consonant voiced that "ought not to be" voiced, I almost have to retire from the room and lie down for five minutes. I cannot understand why our great Australian science broadcaster Robyn Williams is impelled to call his show In Converzation. The man is a hazard.

I agree that these things are connected with synaesthesia, a mild form of which I enjoy, rather than suffer from.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an Australian broadcaster who says "New South Wa-yulz" who's starting to get to me. And I just turn off tv when those ads for supermarket shopping come on... those smiling Stepford Wives holding products in aisles send me running. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re -z- sounds: I have a friend who pronounces the word "us" as uzz, even at the end of sentences ("I think there's something in that for all of uzz"). I've heard her say this thousands of times, but it still always stops me in my tracks and still mildly disturbzz me. And I used to have another friend who was prone to using the word "absurd" as often as possible - except, he always pronounced it abzurd. I haven't seen him for 40 years, but this oddity is still in my memory after much more significant things about him have long since vanished. Maybe they had some Basque blood. Sluzzelin, care to comment? The other word that always gets my attention is "congratulations" pronounced congradulations. I still feel uncomfortable whenever I hear it. When I saw it actually spelled this way in a newspaper only a week ago, I needed some smelling salts; or maybe I should have used some fragrant or pungent erbs. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally you mean, "erbz". +) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Absurd" is one of those words you read thousands of times on the Internet that (almost) no-one uses in real life, (like "moot") so you can't really criticise someone for saying it wrong. I don't know how it's supposed to be pronounced, sadly. --WikiSlasher (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the t with a d? But that changes the word's personality! Gwinva (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How very interesting, Gwinva. In this case, for me it changes it from a felicitous and warm expression to one of heavy burden and duty, not at all what it was intended to be. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me 'absurd' is an everyday word, and though I pronounce it /əbsə:d/ I do not find /əbzə:d/ in the least odd. 'Us' is pronounced /ʊz/by many people in Bradford where I live, and some use that for standard English 'our' as well. Oh, and 'Bradford' is /braʔfəd/, with no voicing in the central cluster. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, they say "/ʊz/ Father, who art in Heaven ..." etc? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

synonym for thankful

I am doing english homework and i need a synonym for thankful that starts with the letter i and m and i can not find any —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.231.131 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this online thesaurus Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"im grateful"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! - - CBHA (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imdebted? —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did it specify a one-word synonym? How about "immeasurably thankful", "immobile with admiration", "impossible to thank you enough", or "impotent with awe"? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children learning/speaking tonal languages

To my ear American toddlers and young children are pretty tone deaf. And when I've seen videos of Chinese children singing (usually the enthusiastic praise of something governmental) I don't detect much, if any, tonal inflection. They sound just like American kids, shouting the words.

Are the words (Chinese, say) children learn more or less likely to be tonal?
Are early speakers, 2-year olds, fully "tonal" at that age? Or must their meaning be inferred from context?
Are little kids able to discern "tonal" words? (For instance, how early can a child "get" "Ma ma ma ma ma."?)

Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, I taught English to a class of about 40 Chinese kids of varying ages, but the youngest ones were 5 years old, so I can only speak for them. They were actively encouraged by their parents to speak Chinese to me in class (Japanese was prohibited because they could get that anywhere in their daily lives and this was their only opportunity to speak either English or Chinese). Anyway, the five year olds had pretty much perfect accents in Mandarin and had no problem with the tones, even correcting me on a few occasions.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children learn to distinguish tones in tone languages very early on. They tend to make mistakes (just like children learning English at first mix up some sounds). Children in general don't learn to sing very well until they're about 5 or 6, and even then it's exceptional to get a really good singer. Beside that point, tone language speakers are equally likely to be bad singers - it doesn't actually help you to be musical! Also, Mandarin singing doesn't use tones. The context is enough to understand it without the tones in most cases where it is ambiguous (which is less often than you might think). Moreover, Chinese patriotic music is generally terrible, and I wouldn't expect it to be very musical. Steewi (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But linguistic tones and musical pitches are not the same thing at the first place!--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting answers. Thank you. Saintrain (talk)