Language desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 13

Russian translation please?

What does the poster in the Udarnik article say please, translated into English? Thanks. 92.29.82.48 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Russian text.

ХОЧЕШЬ? ВСТУПИ

1. ХОЧЕШЬ ПОБОРОТЬ ХОЛОД? 2. ХОЧЕШЬ ПОБОРОТЬ ГОЛОД?

3. ХОЧЕШЬ ЕСТЬ? 4. ХОЧЕШЬ ПИТЬ?

СПЕШИ В УДАРНУЮ ГРУППУ ОБРАЗЦОВАГО ТРУДА ВСТУПИТЬ.

Here is my translation into English.

DO YOU WANT? ENTER

1. DO YOU WANT TO OVERCOME THE COLD? 2. DO YOU WANT TO OVERCOME HUNGER?

3. DO YOU WANT TO EAT? 4. DO YOU WANT TO DRINK?

HURRY INTO THE FOREMOST GROUP TO ENTER EXEMPLARY WORK.

-- Wavelength (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[In this context, YOU is singular. See wikt:хотеть. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you. 92.29.55.65 (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take (only slightly different):

DO YOU WANT? JOIN

1. DO YOU WANT TO VANQUISH COLD? 2. DO YOU WANT TO VANQUISH HUNGER?

3. DO YOU WANT TO EAT? 4. DO YOU WANT TO DRINK?

HURRY TO JOIN THE SHOCK TEAM OF EXEMPLARY LABOUR.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood hole

I posted this on the entertainment desk a few days ago, but I didn't get a reply, so I thought I might try here. There is a line in the Switchfoot song "Free" (from Hello Hurricane, 2009) which goes "There’s a hole in the neighborhood/Where the shadows fall". When I heard it, it reminded me of the line in the Elbow song "Grounds for Divorce" (from The Seldom Seen Kid, 2008) that goes "There's a hole in my neighbourhood down which of late I cannot help but fall". Is the Switchfoot line an allusion to the Elbow song, or are they both drawing from a separate phrase that I am unfamiliar with? —Akrabbim^talk 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the lack of an answer means you will have to ask the writers! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then that it is reasonable to assume that nobody else has heard of it before, Elbow coined it, and Switchfoot alluded to it. —Akrabbim^talk 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED help, please?

D'oh! includes the following quote about the word's inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary: "Eight quotations are cited: the earliest is from 1945; two others are Simpsons-related." I'm confused by this statement; does it mean that one is from 1945, two are Simpsons-related, and five are newer than 1945 and unrelated to the The Simpsons? Nyttend (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes --Ludwigs2 07:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Alansplodge (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what it means. And that is only what it means.174.3.98.236 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists two from 1945, in ITMA scripts spelling it Dooh and Doh. One each from 1952, 1989 and 1991. One from 1993 in a technical document prefaced with the words "as Homer Simpson might say...". Then the first one with the apostrophe and from the Simpsons in Simpsons Comics strike Back! (1996) and one later that from a different program's script. The OED has a separate entry for duh dating it to 1943 in a Merrie Melodies cartoon. meltBanana 14:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was used long before the Simpsons. I recall comedies where some blustery person in power would make a grudging agreement to grant some request and say "D'oh, all right, have it your way," a slightly angry and resigned way of saying "Oh, all right." One such character actor, if memory serves, was Roy Roberts. Edison (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was also famously a catchphrase of James Finlayson in the Laurel and Hardy film shorts of the 1920s and 1930s. Lonegroover (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar & punctuation

Please critique the following sentences for grammar and punctuation based on standard American English rules.

Version A: My last question is would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?
Version B: My last question, would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?

--68.219.47.15 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the first is overly informal, while the second is not properly grammatical at all: it's a comma splice. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that version A is acceptable but that a comma after is would be usual, and I would prefer to capitalize would at the beginning of the direct question (though that is optional)—so "My last question is, Would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?" You could, of course, rephrase the question as an indirect one: "My last question is whether I would be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course." Deor (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version B is acceptable with a colon in place of the comma: My last question: Would I be able to pass a test...?. +An gr 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"is" before the colon would also be valid. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rewrite it something like the following:

"And finally this last question — would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?"

I hope that is helpful advice. Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no no! The correct version is:

My last question is: would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?

Nepotism

Would it be true to say that Queen Elizabeth of the United Kindom becoming queen because her father was king, is an instance of nepotism? 92.29.55.65 (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the office of monarch of the United Kingdom is supposed to be passed on to a relative. It would only be nepotism if it was an office that was supposed to be assigned to someone on the basis of merit. +An gr 13:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that's not just institutionalized nepotism? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just spoiling for a fight :-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's institutionalized nepotism. Our article on nepotism, Wiktionary's definition of nepotism, and Merriam-Websters definition of nepotism all agree that it's a kind of favoritism. But when George VI died and Elizabeth became queen, there was no favoritism involved. She didn't become queen because she was his favorite child; she became queen because that was prescribed by British law. He didn't have any say in who his successor was to be: you can't pick your relatives. +An gr 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. And even if Lizzy did not want to become queen, but preferred the life of a wandering troubador or an international tennis star, she would have had no choice. The law made her queen; end of story. She would have had to abdicate to get her way - and she couldn't even do that unilaterally. If the parliament refused to allow her to abdicate, she stays put; end of story. Her only option then would be suicide. For the third and, sadly, final time, end of story. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or a jockey. I think if ERII had actually said, "I won't serve", they would have found a way to accommodate her somehow. Ironically, if Charles were to say that, I suspect they would take him up on it. However, the Royals are raised with a strong sense of duty, and aside from the occasional aberation (i.e. Edward and Mrs. Simpson), there is little likelihood that a British monarch will abandon that duty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Good Queen Bess has anything like her mother's longevity, she'll probably outlive her son anyway. Will that make Camilla the Queen Stepmother? +An gr 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, although the title "Queen Mother" seems to have been a title granted to her mother on QE2's accession by QE2. I've not found any other use of it in history. I suspect Camilla's title will be something like "the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall". --TammyMoet (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no. "Queen Mother" means a Queen who is Mother to the monarch. If Charles dies before Elizabeth, Camilla will never be Queen - the title is not applied retrospectively. There is at least one example of a woman in that position using the title Queen Mother even when she wasn't entitled to it, though. We do, of course, have an article, Queen mother, which explains all this. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, why wouldn't Charles inherit his mother's longevity? Or his father's (Phil will be 90 this year)? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To footnote Angr and others, our article Succession to the British throne explains how succession works and what laws and rules control it: principally the Act of Settlement 1701, Royal Marriages Act 1772, and Statute of Westminster 1931. It's all perfectly legal and above-board. --Normansmithy (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I start with Elizabethan English?

I can think of at least two dozen books or texts written in Elizabethan English that I'd love to read, but unfortunately much of it is totally incomprehensible to me. I could just read notes and study guides alongside King Lear and The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus, but that'd kind of spoil the experience for me. Can anyone recommend to me a resource -- preferably online -- that can help me understand the vocabulary, the syntax, the rules, etcetera? It'd be appreciated. Heracles Thunderface (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Romeo and Juliet somewhere with a side-by-side "translation" into current English (I'm sure they exist for other texts too). That might be a good option. Glancing across to the opposite page when you don't understand something shouldn't detract from your enjoyment as much as opening a study guide would. By far the best way to get used to Elizabethan English is to expose yourself to it (the same applies to learning any language), so I think trying to find a Teach Yourself Elizabethan English textbook, or similar, would be unwise. Some of the problems with understanding Shakespeare, though, isn't the language changes by the cultural changes, eg. "Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?" (R&J, Act 1, Scene 1). The vocab and syntax are identical to current English usage, but it means nothing to us without the knowledge that biting your thumb was, when the play was written, equivalent to sticking your middle finger up at someone now. I don't know any better way to understand those kind of comments than a study guide, or annotated copy of the play. --Tango (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Authorized King James Version of the Bible, completed in 1611, is from that period. You can compare it with other English translations and with translations in other languages, at http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/1-1.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These links can be used for comparing the same Bible passages in different stages of the English language.

Changes in the English Language (Luke 2:1-19)
The Parable of the Prodigal Son in Early Modern English (Luke 15:11-32)

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Early Modern English. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of the Canterbury Tales and best of all Sir Thomas Mallory's Arthurian legends without any training. They're a lot older and harder than Elizabethan. The trick I used was just to read it out loud - it usually makes sense if you just imagine that they're rubbish at spelling. Keep your thumb in the glossary at the back to look up any words that are too weird. Keep going and you'll suddenly get with the flow. Well, it worked for me. Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Middle English is much harder than Early Modern English (although I think Shakespeare wrote rather more poetically than Chaucer, which counters it a bit - that may just be my minimal experience of Chaucer talking, though). While you may have been able to understand it by reading it out loud, you would have been completely mispronouncing everything. Chaucer pre-dated the Great Vowel Shift. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a philistine, but I don't think authentic pronunciation is that important in this context. Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're a philistine. In particular, modern pronunciation can destroy both the rhythm and the rhyme of Middle English poetry, since words may not have the same number of syllables or stress in the same place as they did 800 years ago, and two words that rhymed then may not still rhyme now. +An gr 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Simplified Shakespeare: Abbreviated Shakespeare histories, comedies and tragedies. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, the best way to understand a Shakespeare play is to see a *good* performance first rather than just reading a play yourself. The actors and director put a lot of effort into understanding the text in rehearsal and how they play it in performance helps audience understanding. Then read the play yourself afterwards. Most editions have explanatory footnotes or analysis to help understanding. The problem in my recommended approach might be in finding a good performance. There are some I've seen that left me cold but then other productions of the same play have been stunning. If you have access to an R2 DVD player, I recommend the recent David Tennant/Patrick Stewart/RSC Hamlet. The R1 version is out later this year. I also quite liked Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet and also his Henry V. There aren't many Shakespeare DVDs to choose from though, so look out for live theatrical performances also. If you then later want to go on to read other plays and books that you can't see performed, you'll have had a start in getting your mind/eye attuned to the language.

Motto for being couraged

I'm looking for encouraging aphorisms like "No risk, no fun." or "No guts, no glory." I guess there are several more? --KnightMove (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No pain, no gain. Maedin\^talk 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Old Norse (I'm currently reading Njáls saga): "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." —Akrabbim^talk 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per ardua ad astra. Marnanel (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Who Dares Wins" is the motto of the SAS and sounds kind of cool, you could probably get away with using it if you're in the US or something where few people would know that, but it might sound silly if you're using it for a kids soccer team in England or something. I've always liked "Today is the day, come what may", which isn't really a motto so much as a line from Crime and Punishment, and now that I think about it that one is probably more fatalistic than encouraging, but I've always liked it. I don't know... AlexiusHoratius 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fortune favours the bold", along with various Latin mottoes meaning roughly the same, like Fortuna favet fortibus (or as Myles na gCopaleen would have it, "Fortuna favet 40 bus"), is popular. Deor (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audaces fortuna adjuvat. —Tamfang (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not a fan, the Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club motto: "Audere est Facere"[1] often translated as "To Dare is to Do" is as elegant as any. Maybe it's the root of "Who Dares, Wins". Where they got it from, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Life is like a sewer - what you get out if it depends on what you put into it." -- Tom Lehrer ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W S Gilbert managed to pack a lot of these sayings into one song. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not quite what you're looking for, but personally I like "Do or do not... there is no try". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is better to light a candle for someone than to curse them in their darkness." Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have a personal preference for this version: "It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness." Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly attributed to Woody Allen is, "Eighty percent of success is showing up." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"None but the brave deserve the fair", from John Dryden's Alexander's Feast. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a quote used in G&S song referenced earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If—. Although surprisingly the article does not give the text of the poem. 78.146.222.3 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases & expressions in English

Is "Answer a fool according to his folly" an expression?--68.219.18.26 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote from the Book of Proverbs... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provers 26:4. Does this proverb meet the criteria of an expression or not?--68.219.18.26 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all proverbs expressions? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what has baffled me. Is this example I have given too long to be an expression? This proverb is longer than "Stand up and be counted".--68.219.18.26 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expression: pick your definition. —Akrabbim^talk 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length per se is not the deciding factor. Metternich said that Italy is not a country, merely a geographical expression. At the other extreme: "If you don't tidy up your room, I'll thrash you to within an inch of your life". Child sobs uncontrollably. Parent says "There, there, I didn't mean it literally, it's just an expression". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Length doesn't matter, then. An expression is always longer than a phrase, though.--68.219.18.26 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first dictionary listed at Definitions of expression - OneLook Dictionary Search, an expression can be a symbol. There is neither a minimum limit nor a maximum limit to the size of an expression.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly, also found in Proverbs, is an aphorism and could be counted as an expression in this way. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about phrases or expressions like Big Bang, Secondary school, Critical rationalism and the like? Would you call them “phrases”, or would you call them “expressions”? -- Irene1949 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]