Language desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

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.

October 19

what do you call this thing used in book shelves?

When you shelve books, you sometimes use a (usually metallic) piece to stop the books from tumbling over to one side, if the row not packed from wall to wall. What do you call that piece? --59.91.253.166 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's any official or correct name. A book stop? Grsz ^Review! 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bookend. Deltopia (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that? Wow. Grsz ^Review! 04:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on everything. :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did the phrase "Old wives' tale" come about?

It doesn't have the origins of the phrase in the wiki article ExitRight (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wife" basically just meant "woman" in this context. In the early modern period, older non-upper-class women (who tended to be illiterate) were the strongest source of traditional folk sayings that had undergone little or no influence from formal written scholarship. AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any real difference between these two sentences

"Elaborate and decorative bookends are not uncommon" and "Elaborate and decorative bookends are common"

To me, the meanings sound different. I know that there's no actual difference, but it sounds as if the first sentence is more appropriate for the context. ExitRight (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a slight difference. The "common" version could suggest they're common almost to the point of ubiquity. The "not uncommon" version tells us that it's not unusual to find them, but non-decorative ones are just as usual, perhaps more so. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Litotes... AnonMoos (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonness is not an all-or-nothing quality. If you imagine a scale like

0. Nonexistent

1. Unique

2. Almost unique

3. Rare

4. Uncommon

5. Fairly uncommon

6. Fairly common

7. Common

8. Very Common

9. Almost ubiquitous

10. Ubiquitous

then you could interpret "common" to mean a rating of 7 or higher while "not uncommon" would mean 5 or higher. --Anonymous but fairly uncommon, 22:02 UTC, October 19, 2008.

I'm doubtful about "ubiquitous" in (9) and (10). It must be possible to be both unique and ubiquitous. Strawless (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? The sky comes to mind. —Tamfang (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the one God. Strawless (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be where the concept of God being both Alpha and Omega (Α and Ω) came from. (Of course, in this case, the scale would start at "1. Unique", because nonexistent entities usually don't have much to say about anything). Anonymous, you may be on to something here. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sample of formal vs. informal english

I am actually studying on my own the difference between formal and informal written English. What I would like to see is a sample text of the same very short composition, perhaps an excerpt of something, written both in formal and informal English for comparison.

I was able to read a sample text of Old English with its Modern English translation, but it's about English Period. Where can I possibly find what I am looking for?

Does Wikipedia have such? If not, website addresses of various sources will be fine with me already as long as I will be able to read those.

thank you so much for any help that you will be able to extend.

God bless.

Carlrichard (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of such a comparison text, but you might find the style of writing in Irvine Welsh's novel Trainspotting or Anne Donovan's novel Buddha Da interesting. Astronaut (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a formal text you would like to see translated, I'll give it a try. Matt Deres (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-ev ending in Russian surnames

What is the rule governing the pronunciation of -ev ending in Russian surnames? Is there a single rule at all? Are there exceptions to the rule? Russian surnames article in WP says nothing about their pronunciations. --Omidinist (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that shows it like this: mʲɪˈdvʲedʲɪf. Grsz ^Review! 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both -ёв and -ев are transliterated as -ev in English, but they are pronounced quite differently in Russian. In the former category, for example Горбачёв/ Gorbachev, the -ev should be pronounced -off (or -yoff, depending on the preceding letter), while in the latter category, for example Николаев/ Nikolaev it should be pronounced as -eff (or -yeff). To my knowledge there is no way to determine which pronunciation should be used in a name transliterated into English, you just have to know. In fact, since most Russian writers don't distinguish between the lettes ё and e anyway it's probably not always possible even for Russians to know which pronunciation to use if they've never seen the name before. 84.9.165.88 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of endings in Russian surnames that are both transliterated into English as "-ev", that is: "-ев" and "-ёв". There may be no difference in everdyday Russian spelling as the diaeresis above the letter "ё" is often ommited, but there is a difference in pronunciation. The letter "е" (see: Ye (Cyrillic)) is pronounced [je] (ye) in stressed syllables or [jɪ] (yi) in unstressed syllables. The letter "ё" (see: Yo (Cyrillic)) is pronounced [jo] (yo). The letter "в" is normally pronounced [v], but at the end of a word it becomes an unvoiced [f]. So for example, as Grsz noted above, "Medvedev", or "Медведев", is pronounced [mʲɪˈdvʲedʲɪf] (myid-VYEH-dyiff), but "Gorbachev", or "Горбачёв", is pronounced [gərbɐˈtɕof] (gor-bah-CHYOFF). — Kpalion^(talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to remember that the letter "ё" is always stressed in Russian, so if you see a spelling like "Горбачёв" you know not only what the vowel quality of "ё" is, you also know that syllable is the stressed one. However, I don't know if there are any names that end in stressed "-ев". —An gr 16:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful answers indeed. Thank you all. --Omidinist (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russians themselves are sometimes not sure. During the Leonid Brezhnev era, I heard some Russian acquaintances of mine refer to him as bresh-nyOFF (-ёв ending), while the majority still favoured BRESH-nyeff (-ев ending). And then there was Nikita Khrushchev (Хрущёв). He usually got the -off ending among English-speakers, but they rarely stressed that syllable as they should. It came out as KROO-shchoff, rather than what the Russians called him, hroo-SHCHOFF. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Nikita a girl's name? Or was that just the Elton John song?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How quickly we forget. :) I guess these days it's become a girl's name in the West, due no doubt at least in part to that song. And it does look like a girl's name, because most Russian names ending in -a or -ya are feminine (although there are exceptions such as Ilya, and a host of diminutives - Sasha (Alexander), Grisha (Grigory), Misha (Mikhail), Vanya (Ivan), Kostya (Konstantin), Kolya (Nikolai) etc). But anyone who can remember the Cuban missile crisis, or Khrushchev actually removing his shoe to slam it down against the lectern in order to more aggressively harangue the United Nations General Assembly, will know that it's traditionally been a masculine name. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been a double entendre on Elton's part. Plus, the 'Nikita' in the video to the song was a Russian border guard....--ChokinBako (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the Elton John song. There was also the French film La Femme Nikita, later remade as Point of No Return in America. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Russian masculine names ending in -а are declined as if they were feminine (e.g. Nikita in nominative becomes Nikitu in accusative), but they're still grammatically masculine so they take masculine adjectives (hence, "old Nikita" is старый Никита in nominative, not старая Никита; and старого Никиту in accusative, not старую Никиту). Cтарая Никита/старую Никиту would be assumed to be referring to a female person from the West named Nikita. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for Latin words like poeta, agricola (poet, farmer). —Tamfang (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with pronunciaion

Im trying to learn Russian but I am not sure how something like, for example, "есмь" should be pronounced. I know the basic sounds of most of the alphabet but I dont know how i should pronounce a word that contains "ь" (ie palatalized). What English examples could you give me to help me understand how to pronounced something that is palatized --217.65.49.34 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple explanation would be to use the 't' in 'tune' (British English - tyoon - you are from Gibraltar, so I guess you will have no trouble with this), but pronounce the 't' by putting the tongue on the teeth, and not above them, as you would normally in English. Keep the gentle 'y' sound. It should sound like 'yesty'. Hope this helps.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Iotation and Palatalization? Basically, the middle of your tongue should be closer the hard palate than if you were pronouncing a corresponding non-palatalized consonant. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember, but Russian phonology might be helpful in the matter. Russian alphabet I think has some approximate pronunciations for Russian sounds. In my experience as a native English speaker, palatalization is the hardest part of Russian pronunciation. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in italian they use settemlia bace per te Why use 7000?

Why is this # 7000 used ? What is the historic significance of 7000 to the Italians?Dom491 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone was confused, the question is apparently about "Settemila baci per te!" which means "Seven thousand kisses to you!" in Italian. As for why seven thousand and not any other number, my only guess is that it's one thousand, a fairly large number, multiplied by seven, traditionally considered a lucky number. Maybe someone else will have a better answer though. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven thousand sounds odd in English. Walter Savage Landor's poem Thank Heaven, Ianthe, Once Again has "Scatter ten thousand kisses sweet". Landor may have been remembering the Song of Solomon, which says "Let him give me ten thousand kisses..." Chaucer, in The Wife of Bath's Tale, goes for one hundred thousand kisses, a number he may have picked up from The Decameron of Boccaccio. But Boccaccio was Italian, so it seems the seven thousand must face some competition. Strawless (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone remember the song "24 mila baci"? — My one true ex says eight thousand whenever she wants an emphatic big number. Various languages each have their favorite numbers. —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji, Hiragana and Katakana use

What kind of writing do Japanese use in: .Wikipedia .newspapers .scientific publications .patents Mr.K. (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't depend on the type of writing as much as on the word itself. Content words of Chinese and native Japanese origin tend to be written in Kanji; function words, grammatical endings, and some other words tend to be written in Hiragana; and loanwords from non-Asian languages as well as words for kinds of animals ("dog", "cat", "octopus", etc.) tend to be written in Katakana. The only times it depends on the type of writing as far as I'm aware is that children's books tend to be written exclusively in Hiragana, and back in the days when people wrote telegrams, those were entirely in Katakana. I think poetry might be written in exclusively in Hiragana too, but I'm not positive about that. —An gr 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr is right, except that animals like 'dog', 'cat', 'octopus', etc., are only usually written in katakana in manga or in street signs, adverts, etc., to make them stand out, a bit like italics. In an adult book, they would be in kanji. Also, generally, if a person does not know a kanji (or expects the reader not to know it), the word would be written in katakana (unless it is already usually written in hiragana, in which case it is not a case of somebody not understanding it, it is just convention).--ChokinBako (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Wikipedia's articles on "dog", "cat", and "octopus", however, are at ja:イヌ, ja:ネコ, and ja:タコ, with redirects from the kanji. —An gr 18:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much understand that, but in a written text, they are generally in kanji. The kanji for 'dog' (犬), for example, appears in that article far more times than the katakana.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason ja articles using katakana for イヌ, ネコ, and タコ is scientific terms are transcribed in katakana. Oda Mari (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oda Mari, that would make sense. And welcome back, by the way!--ChokinBako (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question: if the three system are co-exist within the same text, why do many Japanese manuals concentrate in only one. I am thinking about titles like "Katakana in 30 days" or "Remember the Kanji"Mr.K. (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply because it would be very difficult to learn all three systems simultaneously. Not only that, a book teaching all three would be very difficult to formulate coherently and in an easy to follow way. That's all.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add (since you might be interested, judging from your questions) that the usual order of learning these is the following: hiragana (most widely used), katakana (used a little less), kanji (by far the biggest group of the three). In a language school you might start with basic kanji while you're still learning katakana, or even hiragana. If you're teaching yourself, hiragana is the first step you should take - no use learning kanji if you don't know hiragana to connect them into sentences. As was already said above, your average Japanese sentence will consist of hiragana for the grammatical parts and kanji for the meanings of words (this is a great simplification, but essentially true). TomorrowTime (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...both tumour suppressor and oncogenic pathways"

If I want to say "both tumour suppressor and oncogenic pathway" instead of "both tumour suppressor pathways and oncogenic pathway", do I need hyphens to let the reader know what I've done?

You need a hyphen for "tumour-suppressor," but that holds true whether you say "both tumour-suppressor and oncogenic pathway[s]" or "both tumour-suppressor pathways and oncogenic pathway[s]." I'm guessing your omission of the final s was just a typo, because if you meant to leave it out intentionally, it's ungrammatical. If there's only one "oncogenic pathway," then you would have to say "both tumour-suppressor pathways and the oncogenic pathway," but then again, that might be considered a misuse of the word both.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I meant pathways. But the problem is that there is no connection between "tumour-suppressor" and pathway in the phrase "both tumour-suppressor and oncogenic pathways". If I say "both tumour-suppressor- and oncogenic-pathways" then you can see what I've done and know that "pathways" relates to both "tumour-suppressor" and "oncogenic"? ----Seans Potato Business 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Unfortunately, that use of the hyphen is not conventional. Perhaps you could say "both tumour-suppressant and oncogenic pathways" or is that not okay? This sounds like medical terminology, which is not my mastery at all. If all else fails, there's nothing wrong with saying pathways twice, especially if you believe its omission leads to ambiguity.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"both tumour-suppressor- and oncogenic-pathways" is OK, if a little clumsy: Hyphen#Suspended_hyphens. Bazza (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not okay, because neither "tumour-suppressor-pathways" nor "oncogenic-pathways" is okay. You don't put a hyphen between an attributive noun and the noun it modifies nor between an adjective and the noun it modifies. What the OP wants is "both tumour-suppressor and oncogenic pathways". Hyphenating "tumour-suppressor" is sufficient to make it clear that this noun is being used attributively in modification of "pathways"; if it weren't, it wouldn't be hyphenated either. You could make it clearer by reversing the order – "both oncogenic and tumour-suppressor pathways" – or, of course, by repeating the main noun "both tumour-suppressor pathways and oncogenic pathways". Or by using the pronoun "ones": "both tumour-suppressor pathways and oncogenic ones". —An gr 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lanuages with masc./fem. 2nd person

It just occurred to me. In languages such as Arabic, Hebrew, and others where the 2nd person has both masculine and feminine forms, how do they express the concept that we have in English of '(s)he' or 'he/she', representing both genders, in the 2nd person? Or do they just use the masculine form when the gender is unknown~~/applicable-to-both~~?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for French only, which has the "il/elle" for the third person masculine & feminine, that language has an "indeterminate third person" pronoun, "on", which is used in places where we would use "they (singular)" (informally) or he/shee (formally) in English. It can actually stand for any indeterminate pronoun, for example, "On va..." which can mean "we go" or "he/she goes" or "they go" depending on context... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew that. There is a similar thing in German. I'm asking about 2nd person in the languages that distinguish gender in that person.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember, every language I have ever met which makes a distinction between masculine and feminine uses the masculine form as the default form (where the sex is not known, or for a group containing both men and women). This was the case in English until quite recently, though here it is relevant only in the third person singular. I imagine that other languages are experiencing a similar range of arguments and suggestions as we do in English. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought. Is it just us who have to say both ("he or she") and use spelling conventions (he/she)? Why can't we just go back to the old ways? That'll save on paper/bandwidth!--ChokinBako (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the plural, there's actually been a significant historical tendency across a number of Semitic langauges to simply merge 2nd. feminine plural and 2nd. masculine plural verb and pronoun forms. For example, the contrast had already disappeared in "prefix conjugation" type verb forms in the Akkadian languages (Babylonian and Assyrian) before our earliest available records, and the whole 2nd. feminine plural vs. 2nd. masculine plural contrast is pretty much moribund in modern Hebrew (especially the spoken language) -- certainly the feminine plural imperfect or future verb forms with t- prefix and -na suffix would be considered completely anachronistic in spontaneously-spoken modern Hebrew. Most other Hebrew pronominal and verbal forms are the same between 2nd. feminine plural and 2nd. masculine plural, except that the masculine has a final "-m" and the feminine a final "-n", and the strong tendency is now to use "-m" in all cases (in early post-Biblical Rabbinic Hebrew, the tendency was to use "-n" in all cases). AnonMoos (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So basically, Modern Hebrew has a tendency toward the masculine, while older Hebrew tended toward the feminine? Could that be because of any European influence? After all, Hebrew is a resurrected language. And what about the singular?--ChokinBako (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Rabbinic Hebrew had a general phonological tendency to transform word-final [m] into word-final [n] in a variety of contexts; there was no discernable "tending towards the feminine" in contexts which did not involve such word-final -m/-n, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was that due to Aramaic influence? I'm pretty sure the Hebrew plural ending -im corresponds to an Aramaic ending like -in or -an; was there an Aramaic rule that turned word-final m into n? If so, that could explain it happening in Rabbinic Hebrew, which was written largely by people whose native "please-pass-the-salt" language was Aramaic. —An gr 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember too much more than what I've said (Rabbinic Hebrew is not my area), but I think it's discussed in the 1982 book History of the Hebrew Language ISBN 9652233978 by E.Y. Kutscher (who is worthy of his own article). There's a very little bit about it at Mishnaic_Hebrew#Phonetics (but I remember the [m] to [n] change applying in more contexts than indicated there, though somewhat lexically sporadic). AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the difference between Hebrew masculine plural -īm and Aramaic masculine plural -īn doesn't have much connection to the later change of [m] to [n] in final position, but is due to a certain early Semitic alternation between "mimation" and "nunation" -- so where early Akkadian has the singular case endings -um / -am /-im, Arabic has -un / -an / -in etc. (I'rab) AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Modern Hebrew is resurrected has no bearing on the morphology, which was pretty solidly taken from ancient sources. Some of the phonology and semantics (eg recasting the aspects as tenses) may well reflect influence from European languages. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, the question we started with was about the second person. I have nothing to say specifically about that, but I'd like to mention some languages that go against the more general trend of defaulting to the masculine. This default is well illustrated by Colin Fine's remark above: "As far as I can remember, every language I have ever met which makes a distinction between masculine and feminine uses the masculine form as the default form (where the sex is not known, or for a group containing both men and women)." The following is condensed from Corbett, Greville, Gender, Cambridge UP, 1991, pp. 220–221:

In Maasai, one asks Who[masc] has come? only if one knows that the person in question is masculine. One asks Who[fem] has come? if one knows that the person is female, or if one doesn't know the sex.
In Seneca and other Iroquoian languages "the feminine is used for indefinite reference to people in general."
Similarly in Khoisan.
Similarly in Goajiro (an Arawakan language), except that the gender split itself, while binary, does not correspond well to the familiar masculine–feminine division.

The author goes on to discuss emerging tendencies in English (as well as in Polish and Serbo-Croat) towards neutrality, using singular they and the like, calling these "evasive forms". Then follows a brief discussion of proposed new neutral pronouns in English (like thon), and a mention of languages in which there is no special preference of gender where the sex is unknown, using Dyirbal as an example.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mada mada dane!"

Hello! Besides the possibilities listed here, what other 'translations' of mada mada dane could there be? I know it depends a lot on the context, but I wanted to know other usual interpretations of the phrase (with or without context). Could you mention others? The more the merrier! :) Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it basically means "(it's) not (happening) yet, eh?" Like when you are making a cake and you look in the window of the oven. Are you asking for English idioms, or another meaning to this phrase, because there is only one basic meaning.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm asking for all the possible ways that the phrase can be understood (and translated) in English, all the meanings it can take and such. Not necessarily English idioms matching it, but knowing those would also be nice. From what I've read, it doesn't seem to have a direct translation or meaning in English; so, if you want to translate it, there would be many ways to do so, and I wanted to know some more of those. Kreachure (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but based on the fact that 'mada' means 'still' (and by extension with 'not' it means 'yet', i.e. 'still not'='not yet'), and that 'mada' on its own usually implies negativity, it's quite easy to work out what it means, whether there is a direct and literal translation to it or not. 'Dane' just means "isn't it?". It can only be understood in one way, and I said that above.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article you pointed to says that Ryoma Echizen popularized the phrase, which is not true. It has been in common use for years. Also, it says it is derogatory, which it is not in any way shape or form. In fact, by the grammatical ending of '-ne', it can be seen that it can actually be very polite and friendly. The article needs fixing.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; please don't think that I made this up although I'm no expert. Perhaps the literal translation is just one, but there are perhaps many meanings that it can take! If you don't trust the article, then I'm afraid you'd need to check out the anime itself, where the phrase is used a lot (and Ryoma Echizen does use it in a derogatory manner, without a doubt, maybe through sarcasm). Serious dubs of the show have needed to be very careful on translating it, because depending on the context it may mean something other than just "not yet, right?", and indeed have given many different translations to the same phrase. Is this page here, for example, completely off base in your opinion, too? If you tell me that the following couldn't be valid translations of mada mada dane in any given context, then I will consider you've already provided your answer to my question:

"Not good enough"

"You still have a long way to go!"

"You’re not quite there yet!"

"It's still not ready!”

"You still have a lot to learn!"

And please take no offense, but I would simply like to know if anyone else agrees with your view that mada mada dane only has a single interpretation when translated. Kreachure (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with all of those translations. 'Mada mada dane' just means 'not yet,' as I say. It is you who has to add all the rest, depending on the context. And it is not that I do not trust the article, I am saying it is wrong, because it is not necessarily derogatory. I am a professional translator, mate. All of those 'translations' above depend purely on the context. I would not look at my cake while it is being baked and say, "You still have a lot to learn!". I would say, "It's not done yet," or some such thing.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see where you are coming from. E.g. if my wife is studying cooking and bakes a cake, puts it on the table and we taste it, if I say 'mada mada dane', then it can be that I am looking down on her. If she says it, then it can mean she still does not have the confidence that it was a good cake. However, it can also be used in a totally neutral sense, as in when we are both looking to see if it is cooked yet. Not necessarily derogatory, but that also depends on context.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Geez, that's precisely my point! So you, as a professional translator, couldn't just translate mada mada dane in a single way, because it can be understood in many different ways depending on the context! Maybe its literal meaning is "not yet" (roughly), but in practice it can be understood in a myriad ways and, at times, even with much deeper significance! Considering that, my question was about any usual ways that you could translate it as, but I guess it's just too dependent on the context to ask for 'generalized' translations, right? (If I hadn't known any better, I would've seriously understood from what you had said that there's just one way to translate it!! >:S) Kreachure (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Besides, the manga with Ryoma Echizen is all about ~~martial arts~~ tennis (no, I have not read it), and those translations above (as well as the phrase in Japanese) are the type of things you would expect a strict teacher to say. This is fiction. In the real world, it can be used in a totally neutral sense. Watch Hotaru No Haka (Grave of the Fireflies) and you will see at one point the brother (Seita) is cooking, and he says to his sister (Setsuko) 'mada mada dane', meaning the food is not ready yet. Even in fiction it is used neutrally.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you misunderstood me. I did not say there was only one way to translate it, I said it had only one meaning. There is a difference. Of course, as a professional translator, I translate according to context, otherwise my work would be gibberish.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC!!) Yeah, I definitely misunderstood you that way. I'm certainly not an expert like you, but I thought that all those translation alternatives have different meanings by themselves, so the original would be considered to have different possible meanings from a translation point of view. But, I guess that's wrong. Anyways, thanks for your input. Kreachure (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madamada is an emphasized form of the adverb mada. See how the word translated into English. [1] and [2]. Hope these will help. Oda Mari (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]