Language desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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.

September 9

Chinese translation, please

This one stumped me: a request to translate "world's joy" into Chinese, as a name for a panda. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have to be limited to two characters? There isn't an exact one-character term for "world". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably; most are called Ling Ling, or something childish like that. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are pandas; they're meant to be cuddly and not have names like Kwok-kwan. By analogy to Guanshiyin, "seer of the world's sounds", I would use 世 (Shi) for "world". Joy could be something like 喜, 欢, 乐, etc. The first is probably the more literary term for "joy", but I'm not sure that "Shixi" would sound all that nice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can really translate names with literally meaning intact without sounding really weird to native speakers. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an infinite variety in Chinese names. It's not so much about sounding "normal" as sounding nice. There's little choice for "World", so I think DOR could play around with the "Joy" part to get something that sounds pleasant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's infinite variety with names in most languages, but modern English speakers (and others of European descent) primarily use hereditary names from languages they can't even speak anymore. So all unfamiliar names sound strange to native English speakers. :) Indeterminate (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I suppose the difference is that it's accepted, even expected, for English-language names to be chosen from a relatively small pool of traditional names, whereas parents will usually try to come up with a somewhat unique combination of characters for Chinese names. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I'm leaning toward "Shi-shi," but haven't come up with a character for the second part. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, shi can be feces, corpse, and shi-shi is homonym to 逝世(passing away). --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention 试试（看） ("give it a try"), also pronounced shìshi.

That being said, trying to come up with a Chinese name that is totally immune to puns would be quite a Sisyphean endeavor. Chinese speakers will always find something... (my favorite right now is 艾滋病 -〉爱资病) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the surname "Seay"

My fiancee's last name is Seay. As an amateur etymologist with a special interest in name origins, I'd love to know exactly what that means - especially since it's going to be hyphenated onto mine after we marry! All we know at present is that it's Scottish, can be pronounced several different ways (no one EVER gets it right on the first try anyway!), and isn't very common. - She Who Works Industriously to Supplant Atavistic Ways in the Name of Renowned Truth (that's what my name means, seriously!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.238.248 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming it was a homonym of "Shay", as in "One-hoss shay", or "Shea" as in Shea Stadium; but I'm not totally sure. Anyway, I went to Google and simply entered, seay origin, and a bunch of links came up, these being the first two: [1] [2] There is, of course, an article on Seay here also, although it raises more questions than it answers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note of caution, take anything you find on a "family crest" site with a pinch of salt. There are no such things as family crests. Heraldry has strict rules; crests are granted to individuals by an officer of arms, and there are various conventions regarding inheritance and differencing; they are never awarded to surnames. It is usurpation to use another's arms. bucket shops make money by selling dubious, imaginary or usurped crests, and are quite happy to spin any family name history yarn to make it seem authentic. Gwinva (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word crest is not actually synonymous with "coat of arms", anyway... AnonMoos (talk)

Well, a 'coat of arms' is literally a garment; but yes, the crest and the shield are different parts of the achievement of arms. Funnily enough, if the person in question does turn out to be a member of an ancient Scottish family, there may be some limited entitlement to use herladic devices relating to the clan, which would not be the case for a typical member of an English family. However, I'm no expert on the fine print of Scottish clan heraldry, and the Court of Lord Lyon, which is responsible for such matters, tends to be a lot more vigorous with those who get it wrong than the equivalent authorities here in England. None of which is to gainsay in any way the general rule against trusting 'family crest' agencies, who are basically scam merchants. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address of the poster tracks to Verizon, an American ISP. I'll note that there are no laws or regulations (that I'm aware of) in the US regulating who can use coats of arms or other heraldry devices, like there are in the UK. Anyone is free to use them as they see fit, without legal consequence. However there may be interpersonal consequences with others who dislike your unofficial use of the heraldry devices, and if you ever cross the pond you have to be cautious that you won't run afoul of the laws there. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But using someone else's would surely be breach of copyright? Anyway, apologies for ambiguous use of "crest" earlier; I was in bucket-shop terminology mode. The point being, "family crest/arms/name history" companies are charlatans, scams or, possibly well-meaning but misguided. They are certainly not reliable sources. Regarding the OP's original question regarding the name origin, by googling I have found any number of family historians purporting to offer the definitive answer. You can take your pick from Norman, English, Scottish, Irish; from a habitation, from the word "sea", corrupted from other names, taken from first names... Among the plausible suggestions are that it came from O'Shea/Shea in Ireland (and thus, according to Oxford, from O Seaghdha, descendent of a man whose name meant "fine" or "fortunate"); and that it is connected to Say/Saye, an English surname, (which Oxford links to an old Norman habitation name "Sai" in Orne or "Say" in Indre, as well as to makers of "say", a type of finely woven cloth). This last is given some credence by the fact some individuals are listed under both Seay and Say/Saye spellings in censuses and other references.Y ou might find this distribution chart interesting. Also, how do you pronounce it? When I first saw it, I would have suggested Shay or Say (which fit with those suggestions, actually). My google search shows that while those pronounciations are found in the UK, it is more commonly "See" in the US. Which is possibly a later corruption, and causes some people to link it to the vocab word "sea", and thus menaing that the original holder lived by the sea. Gwinva (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the copyright question, it would probably depend on when the original crest was issued. If it was before 1923, it's considered in the public domain. See here. Indeterminate (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in traditional European-based heraldry, the authoritative definition of a coat of arms is the textual description or blazon, and many different artistic depictions derived from the blazon can be considered acceptable renderings of the arms. So if you create a new artistic rendering from scratch, based on the blazon, then you own the copyright to your own particular version of the arms (regardless of whether the arms existed before 1923 or not)... It's only when you want to make use of somebody else's artistic rendering that the 1923 rule etc. etc. comes into play. AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original questioner needs to follow the advice in this song. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translations of The Name of the Rose passages?

There are many Latin passages in Umberto Eco’s novel of above name. Too many to list here and ask for translations. There are also passages in other languages. Is there any site that has translations of such passages in books? Myles325a (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book that does so (The Key to "The Name of the Rose"). There doesn't seem to be an online list. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google books - "name+of+the+rose"+deciphered&source=bl&ots=2lK3_Cjqxp&sig=J5ni1g7uESmvW9WTM9hhGparb-Y&hl=en&ei=qO-nSqONAs-fjAfk9M22CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ,not sure how complete it is.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American English dictionary?

Is there an authoritative dictionary of American English used by American media, gov't, academics, etc? I'm especially interested in variant spellings of odd words and which spelling is preferred. --Sonjaaa (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best known is Webster's Dictionary. See also Category:English_dictionaries.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions on variant spelling are the province of a style guide, not a dictionary (a good dictionary should list all variants in use). The US government uses the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, while (according to our article) the Chicago Manual of Style is standard for books and the Associated Press Stylebook is standard for newspapers. Algebraist 10:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Webster's Dictionary" doesn't actually mean anything, as anyone can call their dictionary "Webster's". The definitive unabridged dictionary of American English is Webster's Third New International Dictionary, published by Merriam-Webster (which does mean something as that name is still a defended trademark). However, some purists reject it as not being ~~authoritarian~~ authoritative enough, and therefore prefer the unabridged edition of the American Heritage Dictionary. There are plenty of other dictionaries, of course, but I'd say those are the big two: Merriam-Webster for descriptive issues, American Heritage for prescriptive issues. +An gr 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Sonjaaa's question is that, no, there is no single authoritative dictionary or standard source of preferred spellings in the United States. For most words, the two leading dictionaries mentioned by Angr agree on a single spelling. However, for words with variant spellings, there is often no universal standard in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's Third New International Dictionary is "definitive" for the copywriters working to maintain its sales, not for anyone else who isn't gullible. As American English is a natural and not a formal language, the notion of a "definitive dictionary" is somewhat absurd; although there does exist Words and Phrases Legally Defined (LexisNexis/Butterworth's), a copy of whose 4th and latest edition (with latest supplement) will put you back quite a bit. Merriam-Webster is a good dictionary, but it's hugely oversized for a single volume and needs careful storage unless you want it to turn into the repulsive object on offer at the average library. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum to Algebraist's response: While the AP Stylebook is used by the majority of newspapers in the U.S., there are some (The New York Times, for example), who have their own. At the newspaper where I work, we use AP, but with minor modifications to deal with local idiosyncrasies. — Michael J 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoti

Inspired by the 'woman/women' question above, I would like to ask a question about the word 'ghoti'. In the article, it mentions that the word has been used as is as the name for characters in books, a word in Klingon and in other things. In these cases, how is the word pronounced? This is not mentioned in the article. I would assume, in order to keep the obscurity, the word would not be pronounced 'fish', but in some way that would more readily reflect its spelling (as if it were Latin, for example), but I am unsure as to the pronunciation of the 'gh' (is the 'h' pronounced separately or is it even silent?) and the 'o' (is it long or short?). Any ideas? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon gh is supposed to be ɣ. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the band Ghoti Hook says they said it like "goatee". --Sean 16:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would pronounce this go-dee (where the "d" is the sound of the "tt" in latter). L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How do you differentiate "latter" and "ladder"? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks don't; similar to "water" and "wadder," especially if you're not trying to speak slowly; not uncommon in the American midwest. In context, when you're painting the hallway, you rarely ask someone for help with the latter. Nor would you ask directions to the Ladder-Day Saints church. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, some people don't differentiate Adam and atom. --Kjoonlee 23:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really differentiate "latter" and "ladder", and "water" and "wadder" are homophonous, and "Adam" and "atom" too. Oh, yes, and "fish" would be my first pronunciation but since KageTora was asking for a different pronuncation I gave my second. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how "grotesque" evolved into "grody". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the whole point of "Ghoti" is that it is pronounced "fish", and that only those in the know get the joke. // BL \\ (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Either they don't get the point, or they're trying to be funny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the existence of fishhooks and the nonexistence of goatee-hooks, I'd say the latter. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion on Wiktionary recently about the pronunciation of "goatee" and people agreed that it was "go-TEE" while "goaty" was "GO-tee". Just to clarify. I assume "ghoti" would be stressed on the first syllable (like goaty) not second (like goatee). L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so a 'goaTEE' would be a person who had presumably been 'goated'. Is 'to goat' a verb? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faintly ridiculous

I keep hearing this expression, usually from UK-speakers, and it intrigues me. "Faintly" seems to be an understated way of saying "frankly" or some other adverb, as a strengthener of "ridiculous", but I've never heard it used with any other adjective in order to strengthen it. Any clues what this is about? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I don't think it's a "strengthener"; rather a "toner-down" or "understater," I'd say, with the sense of "somewhat [or 'rather'] ridiculous." I'm from the midwestern U.S., not the UK, but I hear it all the time and probably use it without thinking about it myself: a "faintly amusing" TV program, a "faintly charming" woman, a "faintly odd" series of events, etc. I presume that it's an extension of the "indistinct" sense of faint. Deor (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Faintly Macabre" is the name of a character in The Phantom Tollbooth... AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any examples of this usage? In the interest of OR, I don't think I've ever heard this during my time in the UK. Martlet1215 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it here and there (I'm a Brit) but it's not very common. As for usage, googling 'faintly' gives 2.6 million hits, and many of them are examples of usage. For starters, here's one. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incipient humor is the best part of humor. When something is all out funny, it is not so funny. "Faintly ridiculous" suggests that moment when it dawns on you that humor is underfoot, or that something is "funny." I think that is what the phrase aims for. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English has (as usual) changed somewhat since I lived there oh so many moons ago. Found this example which reminds me of the reinforced damning phrase "distinctly mediocre". -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some real-world examples:

The sense of the first one is "completely ridiculous" or "absolutely ridiculous". Some of the others are debatable. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, this just goes to show the inadequacy of my experiences. Martlet1215 (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I disagree with Jack's reading of the whyscience example:

... the question ‘Why is science important?’ is actually faintly ridiculous. It’s a bit like asking ‘Why is breathing important?’ ...

It's a bit like an obviously absurd question; does that make it completely ridiculous? The same quoted passage later contains the phrase deep and meaningful questions that hint faintly (sometimes not so faintly) at philosophical questions, in which faintly is unlikely to mean anything like 'completely'.

In the crack about Henry Wallace, I can't believe it means he's doomed always to be completely ridiculous; merely that a residual absurdity clings to him no matter how serious his actions.

Hadridge also uses reticence to mean reluctance, so I won't take his usage as evidence of anything.

I suspect that for some writers faintly ridiculous has become indivisible. (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian)#Tomb Naming, one of Jack's examples, supports this in that User:Markh uses the phrase twice.) Perhaps it started with reluctance to come out and call anyone ridiculous without quibble. — And of course one may expect to find ironic examples; I've met more than one person with an irritating habit of using slight(ly) with all the subtlety of an elbow to the ribs. —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me that it is related to the more common phrase "patently ridiculous". They sound similar and this might be a malapropism that actually works, patently meaning clearly and faintly meaning only slightly. meltBanana 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense, melt. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think since Jim Baggot is criticizing the name of the site he is writing for, he is just being polite by opting for "faintly" (i.e. "slightly") when he clearly means "completely". 81.131.12.81 (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take is a bit different: that "faintly ridiculous", at least in some contexts, just suggests a slight incongruity, like U.S. President Calvin Coolidge (a dour, taciturn New England Yankee) wearing an American Indian warbonnet. The phrase I see a little more often is "faintly absurd", a phrase that implies more of the incongruity. Of course, there are times when either phrase (but I hope not "patently ridiculous") could apply to all or part of the whole Wikipedia enterprise where an indeterminate, self-selected crowd of unpaid, usually anonymous amateurs with wildly varying degrees of expertise (e.g. me) attempt to outdo Diderot, Voltaire and The Encyclopaedia Britannica. The test might be whether the absurdity or ridiculousness provokes instant audible laughter. But what do I know? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure Latin Maxim

A number of web-based lists of Latin maxims/quotations have the following:

Oblitus sum perpolire clepsydras! - I forgot to polish the clocks![www.yuni.com/library/latin_5.html]

Is this classical Latin? (I realize clepsydras is classical or hellenistic Greek) Perhaps more importantly, what is the import of this statement? Is it a metaphor? Many thanks --152.3.129.131 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's real Latin, although I don't know the significance either. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clepsydra (literally "water-stealer") is a specific kind of water-clock, and not really the word for "clock" in general. AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I heard someone say "I forgot to polish the clocks", I would guess that he meant he had forgotten to clarify something, esp. the time of something.--Omidinist (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we all realise, don't we, that the Classical Romans (and Greeks) long predated the sort of mechanical clock that would canonically require polishing? Mechanical (as opposed to water) clocks called horologia first appeared in Europe in the 14th century, but the advent of clocks featuring brightwork and glass dates (I would guess) to no earlier than the 17th century. That said, "classical" Latin remained in widespread educated use until recently (I myself failed a school exam in it) and still has active users, so post classical and modern coinages in it are valid.

A cursory G00gle search reveals no English-language hit for ". . . polish the clocks" except as something humorous to translate into Latin. Having never previously encountered the expression, I too would welcome an authoritative explanation. My idiosyncratic interpretation would be that it refers to someone engaging in pointless 'displacement activity' or procrastination rather than embarking on more important activity (like, for example, answering this question rather than filling out a job application form for my interview tomorrow :-) ). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking it is some sort of sexual euphemism. "He really polished her clocks!" Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with 87.81.230.195's "idiosyncratic" interpretation: something as a time-waster or filler.... --152.3.128.132 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]