Language desk
< November 23	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 24

What does this say

I need to know the marriage date of Louise Marguerite of Guise.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian:

Il 24 luglio 1605, per volere di Enrico IV, convolò a nozze nel castello di Meudon con Francesco di Borbone, principe di Conti. Il contratto matrimoniale era stato firmato il 1º maggio di quello stesso anno con l'intenzione di riunire in un forte vincolo l'antica dinastia di Lorena, da sempre cattolica, con la dinastia dei Borbone, di fede protestante. [1]

German:

Am 24. Juli 1605 wurde sie auf Wunsch Heinrichs IV. im Schloss Meudon mit François de Bourbon, dem Fürsten von Conti, vermählt. Der Heiratsvertrag zu dieser Verbindung, welche die alte Adelsdynastie Lorraine enger an die Bourbonen binden sollte, wurde am 1. Mai des gleichen Jahres auf Schloss Fontainebleau unterschrieben. Die Historiettes von Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux behaupten, dass Heinrich IV. zuvor selbst eine Heirat mit Louise-Marguerite erwogen haben soll, doch sie sei 1590 von Gabrielle d’Estrées in der Gunst des französischen Königs verdrängt worden. Da Louise-Marguerite aber zu jener Zeit gerade einmal zwei Jahre alt war, gilt dies nach heutigem Forschungsstand als widerlegt.

It's pretty obviously July 24, 1605. Were you looking for a complete translation? You might try Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No if you are sure. I just noticed in the middle it mention a second date (1 May); I didn't know if the first was a betrothal and the second the marriage date or not. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak either of these languages, but at a cursory glance it looks pretty likely that the marriage was announced on 1 May and held on 24 July. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, July 24, 1605, the wedding took place; on May 1 of that year "the marriage contract had been signed with the intention of reuniting in a strong connection the old dynasty of Lorena...with the dynasty of the Borbone."--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English usage, which here generally follows the French, the houses would be those of Lorraine and Bourbon, so my shaky translation from the Italian would be something like

On 24 July 1605, at the wish of Henry IV, she married François de Bourbon [Francis of Bourbon], Prince of Conti at the Castle [Château] of Meudon. The marriage contract had been signed on the first of May of the same year, with the intention of uniting with a strong link the ancient House [dynasty] of Lorraine, Catholic as always, with the House of Bourbon, of the Protestant faith.

Henry IV (or Henry of Navarre, 1589-1610) had been the leader of the Protestants (or Huguenots) in the French Wars of Religion, but changed his faith to secure the French throne, with the famous, or notorious, comment "Paris vaut une messe" (Paris is worth a [Catholic] Mass.) The Guise, which le Petit Larousse illustré describes as a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine, led the ultra-Catholic faction in the Wars of Religion. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O Fortuna

Our article provides a translation of the poem and we also have it translated on Wikisource, but the translations don't match. For example, our article translates ludo mentis aciem as Deceptive sharp mind, while our Wikisource article has it reworked from a rather different angle and instead has as fancy takes it, completing the thought from the line previous. There are other differences as well. Since neither of them make any attempt to be "poetical", could someone who knows Latin give them a look and see which at least translates it more properly? My dead-tree translation (by David Parlett) makes an incredible effort to preserve the metre and structure (but sometimes fudges the literal meaning) and has that line as shifts us like pawns in her play. It's one of my favourite pieces; I'm a little annoyed that I might have fallen in love with a mistranslation! ;) Matt Deres (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two construes the poem exactly as I would, but on the whole I think the Wikisource one matches the meaning of the Latin better. For instance, with regard to the passage you quote, our article's "Detestable life / now difficult / and then easy / Deceptive sharp mind" translates the verbs obdurat and curat as adjectives ("difficult" and "easy"), leaving "Deceptive sharp mind" (awkward for several reasons, particularly since all three words in ludo mentis aciem are nouns) in some sort of extrasyntactic limbo. (I like to think that aciem hovers ambiguously, able to be taken as the object of the preceding obdurat and curat or, in parallel with the following egestatem and potestatem, as an object of dissolvit. Nevertheless, as punctuated, a literal translation would be something on the order of "In its play, hateful life now hardens, then cures, keenness of mind; it melts both poverty and power like ice.") Deor (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your meaning, but it reads kind of strange in English, doesn't it? As read, it seems that life can harden keenness of mind and also cure keenness of mind, both of which seem like odd expressions. Would the original Latin have implied that it was the hardness that could be cured or is it more like curing someone of illness (i.e. cure=removal), so that life hardens keenness of mind (i.e. makes it slower or less nimble) and then may cure it (i.e. remove it completely)? Matt Deres (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning, expressed less literally, is "alternately dulls and sharpens one's mental acuity". Deor (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that pretty much fits with the rest. Thanks very much! Matt Deres (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italicization in cursive handwriting

This question is actually something I've pondered for several years. In cursive handwriting, is there a way to "italicize" text? If I were to write, say,

"According to The Chicago Manual of Style, italics should be used for words in a foreign language, such as knäckebröd."

in a handwritten letter, how would I properly emphasize the italics? In the past I've sometimes resorted to underlining... decltype (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In handwriting, I would underline the book title and put the foreign word in quotes. I was under the impression this was standard. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, going back to my early school days, handwritten essays would have followed that. With the ubiquity of keyboards these days, though, I think almost anything hand-written would be informal enough not to worry about any MoS guidelines. Now, if you just want to have something that stands out slightly (as italics do in regular text), I've also seen instances in novels and such that simply switch back to normal text, as in It was a dark and stormy night; the worst in years. Matt Deres (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm old enough that only a couple of my pre-college papers were typed (on pre-Selectric typewriters that required either underlining or the red part of a typewriter ribbon for emphasis). If one's cursive handwriting is upright, then it is (I've found) possible, if not completely effective, to slant it for emphasis, but underlining is the usual (and generally-understood) way to emphasize a word or phrase (or to indicate foreign words or technical terms within other prose). Another way (although enhanced by underlining or enclosing in quotation marks) is to use non-cursive ("print") letters, slanted or upright, or even SMALL CAPITALS and l e t t e r - s p a c i n g: this can be a good practice, anyway, when spelling out a name or a foreign word where every individual letter should be independently clear. These other methods wouldn't work well, however, for sentences and paragraphs. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally accepted that underlining on a typewriter or in handwriting is equivalent to italicizing in print (except for mathematical equations like x = 2y, where the x and y are italicized in print but plain with a typewriter or handwriting). Note that just as italicizing is inconvenient or impossible on a typewriter or in handwriting, so underlining of text was inconvenient with traditional (hot or cold metal) typography, so there was a convenient duality between the two forms of marking. With phototypesetting and now digital media we now can do both italicization and underlining if we want, but this is new enough that no standard way has developed to use them with distinct meanings. --Anonymous, 22:33 UTC, November 24, 2009.

And in the mathematical examples, it might be dangerous, or at least confusing, to underline the unknown variables x and y since underlining and overlining often indicate mathematical characteristics, connections or conventions. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since underlining can mean many things, newspaper proofreaders often double-underlined words to be italicised and triple-underlined those to be put in bold-face, usually accompanied by a marginal or interlinear notation like "bf". (My Merriam-Webster Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives a different convention, perhaps oriented towards books with more typographical flexibility than newspapers: single straight underlines for italics, double for SMALL CAPITALS, triple for ALL CAPS, and single wavy for boldface.) But that's markup for printing; I'm certainly not recommending it for simple handwriting. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonganaku

our housename is called 'ikonganaku' - can anyone tell me what this means or where it would originate from. Google shows nothing - i've been told it's possibly japanese or afrikans? Any info would be much appreciated. Thanks 213.52.216.196 (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if it's split as "Ikonga Naku"? "Ikonga" is a placename and personal name in the Congo, and "naku" appears also to be Congolese. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely not a Japanese name, but, just for interest I can tell you that if it were Japanese, it could mean 「遺恨がなく」(pronounced 'ikonganaku') - 'without a grudge'. :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could that be it? A bit like Sans Souci? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, possibly. I misunderstood the word 'housename'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with (archaic) Dutch translation

Can anyone translate this for me? It's a caption for an old Dutch religious print showing a couple of artists painting God and the angels. One labelled A is fine, but B is being grabbed by the devil. I wondered what B has done wrong.

Om mat ghy de stercker tot de deugt verweckt sout worden, soeckt ende volght [A] d’exemplen der Heyligen, meest van uw’ Patronen, ende versoeyt [B] de sonde, die u van deselve treckt, ondersoeckt wat sy van dese deught hebben gevoelt, en geschreven; hoe sy die hebben geoffent door ‘t ingeven van den [C] H. Geest.

Thanks in advance. BTW, this not work or homework, but trying to help solve a puzzle at a blog post [1]. Gordonofcartoon (talk)

I am native Dutch, so I'll give it a try. First, there may be some transciption errors in your text. "Om mat" is maybe "Om dat" or "Op dat"? And "versoeyt" is probably "verfoeyt"? Also "geoffent" may be "geoffert"? Could you check these please? 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Very very rough translation: So that you will be stronger stimulated to the virtue, seek and follow [A] the examples of the Holy ones, like(?) most(?) of your Saints, and abhor [B] the sin, which pulls you away from this, research what they have felt of this virtue, and written; how they have sacrificed this by the inspiration(?) of the [C] Holy Spirit. So the text does not seem to indicate what [B] did wrong, unless I am missing some subtlety in the old Dutch. Maybe some other Dutch person can do better, but I hope this is a start. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

I looked at the image at the link, and my very uneducated guess is that the one painting is too frivilous, so the devil takes the artist, while the other painting is nice and religious so that artist is safe from the devil. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Brilliant! Thanks, Martin. That is actually sufficient; I just wondered what was happening to him and why (my first guess was that it was anti-Catholic, because he's painting Mary rather than Jesus). But the translation makes it clear that the label B refers not to the artist, but to the creature representing "sonde" (sin) distracting him. I'm sure you're right about "verfoeyt" - I read the f as a "long s". Here's the page in question: [[2]]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The archaic Dutch literally reads (my English may be imperfect): "Because thou wouldst be incited to virtue the stronger, search and follow [A] the examples of the Saints, most of thy Patrons, and despise (verfoeyt) [B] sin, which pulls thee from the same, investigate what they have felt of this virtue, and written; how they have practised (geoeffent) it by the inspiration of the [C] Holy Spirit." [Followed by: "The best example of all virtue is the [D] Mother of God, Mary; of zeal and diligent prayer [E] S. Paul..."] The book was published by the Society of Jesus in Antwerp and is entitled "The Way of the Eternal Life". Iblardi (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also. I was being rather dim to think it might be anti-Catholic; I didn't spot it was a Jesuit publication! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "ibid."

I have not seen the use of ibidem in a sentence as an adverb but as an abbreviation for citations, like:

4. E. Vijh, Latin for dummies (New York: Academic, 1997), p.23.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., p.29.

Is this example (see:in context) in WP correct? -Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if a Manual of Style translates (or refers) "ibid." not as ‘the same author’ (same citation) but as ‘in the same place’? To the latter case, the first two citations is correct but not the third. Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)-[reply]

I haven't seen a manual of style that does that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It's the same "place" in the sense of being the same book. You can't use it to refer to a different paper by the same author. — Emil J. 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked any recent manuals of styles. But just to refer ‘the same book’, the citation would be ‘id.’. To refer ‘in the same place’, the citation would be ‘ibid’. So a simple correction would be:

4. E. Vijh, Latin for dummies (New York: Academic, 1997), p.23.

5. Ibid.

6. Id., p.29.

That means ‘the same book but in page 29’ (though it is different in legal quotations; cf. id.). Are there any recent manuals that recommend avoiding these abbreviations for adapting any other English forms in modern writings? Or are these still preserved abbreviations?-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal usage differs from other usage, as it says clearly in the very article you linked (Ibid.). Just because it meant "the same exact" place in Latin doesn't mean it's always used that way today, and there is nothing wrong with the usage presented in the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Latin abbreviations are supposed to be avoided now anyway. If I remember correctly, the latest Turabian (and presumably also the latest Chicago Manual) just repeats the author's last name (and the title if necessary), no idems or ibids or anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]