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

Santo Poco

A very funny film, Three Amigos, is set in the fictional Mexican village of Santo Poco, literally "holy little". To me this sounds like it could be a Spanish idiom meaning something like "precious little". But I can't seem to find any evidence of this on Google. Does anyone know if it is actually a Spanish idiom, even if a little-used one, or did (presumably) Steve Martin just make it up himself? --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Spanish speaker, but it seems more likely to mean "Little saint"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, sorry, I wasn't quite clear -- poco means "little", but not in the sense of "small". It means "little" as in the opposite of "much". --Trovatore (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(...or sometimes — at least in Italian; not sure about Spanish — the opposite of "very". English unfortunately does not have a good antonym for "very", so that sense is not really translatable in a single word.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, "not very holy" or "holy not much". (?) Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were poco santo that would work, but not santo poco. Adjectives usually come after the noun they modify, but quantifiers usually don't. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several English villages have names ending in "magna" meaning greater, or "parva" meaning lesser. Appleby Magna and Appleby Parva are examples. So a literal translation into English would be "Saint Parva". --TammyMoet (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except 'magna' and 'parva' are Latin words, Tammy, and can't be extended beyond the names of those villages for general use in English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As they are English place names, I don't see why they shouldn't be used as the equivalents of place names in another country. If you're going to be that picky, then why not "Little Saint" on the lines of "Little Snoring"? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what poco means. See discussion above. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the discussion above, but I don't think you're getting my point. The use of "little" or "great" in English place names equates to "parva" or "magna" and translates more or less as "lesser" or "greater", which probably translates the "poco" in the original place name more adequately. In these cases, "little", "great", "magna" or "parva" are part of the name itself and not descriptors - although they may well have been when the villages were named. As we are discussing place names, the analogy is good. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry Tammy, but no, it still just doesn't translate poco at all. Poco is never about size. Never never never never. It's about quantity only. --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to translate little saint you'd get something like santo pequeño, I think. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Santito"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Little" the opposite of "much" - as in Little Hadham and Much Hadham? Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "Little Saint" would have been santito (or santita, if female). That said, the movie may have intentionally named the place in broken Spanish for "Little Saint". It is, after all, an English-language comedy of ethnic stereotypes, and former Hispanic colonies are notorious for place-names after [patron] saints (we have a few San Fernando's, San Jose's, and Santiago's, San Vicente's, etc. near here).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe it. Steve Martin is a brilliant man, and I have the idea that he speaks Spanish. I don't think it would have occurred to him to mix up the two senses of "little".

I'm almost sure I've correctly channeled his meaning here: It's a village of very little — little money, little food, little account. Precious little. "Holy" little. What I'd like to know is, is it a known idiom, or did he make it up himself? --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your hypothesis, but it hasn't struck other people as overwhelmingly probable (in comparison with other ideas, such as "santo" as noun), and no native Spanish-speaker has come forward to ringingly endorse it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poco is not an adjective, so santo as a noun simply doesn't make sense. There's really no ambiguity on this point. --Trovatore (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Rethinking that a little: I think it may be an adjective that can be applied to mass nouns, maybe something like poca leche, not much milk. But it's not the sort of adjective that can be applied to saint.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are expressions that use "santo" ironically, such as "todo el santo día" ("the whole damn day"), but "santo poco" is not an idiomatic expression. However, "un gran poco" is an expression meaning "quite a bit", as in "hoy hay un gran poco de tráfico." It is conceivable that Steve Martin combined the two expressions, but if he were inclined to that sort of cleverness, surely he would have gone with "San Poco", which is at least a pun on an existing expression. It seems to me far likelier that he just wanted a name evocative of a tiny, rustic, devout place. The average English-speaker would probably assume that it was named after "Saint Poco", and that's probably the impression Martin wanted to give. "Poco" can also be used as a noun, as in "un poco de agua". So the town's name might be interpreted as "Holy Tidbit". LANTZY ^TALK 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Un passato non chiaro" - can someone please translate from Italian?

"Senza contare che Rossi ha un passato non chiaro legato al progetto di trasformare rifiuti industriali in petrolio." - from Corriere Di Bologna [1]

Google Translate mangles this rather. I think I know what it means, but I'd like confirmation. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would translate it something like without taking into account that Rossi has a shadowy past linked to the project of converting industrial waste into petroleum. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I started out with shady instead of shadowy, but I think that's too strong — shady tends to mean you're pretty sure the interested party was involved in something not quite honest, whereas I think the idea here is more that you have suspicions but can't prove them.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd thought perhaps 'murky' was what they were getting at, but 'shadowy' might be better. As you say, they are implying something, rather than stating it outright. All rather problematic from a BLP point of view, but they seem to be trying to avoid committing themselves in a context where verifiable facts are hard to come by. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murky probably works too. I'm not sure I can give any useful account of the differences in connotation between murky and shadowy, in any case. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a native (US) English speaker, I'd say that "murky" has even less of a negative connotation than "shadowy". I'd even go so far as to say that by default "murky" doesn't have any negative connotation at all, with any negative connotation being implied from context. "Shadowy" brings up associations with film noir/espionage - not overtly bad, but not straightforwardly good, either. I'd say the difference is that "murky" means "unclear", while "shadowy" means "hidden", with all the associated questions of why someone is hiding something. -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd German idiom

I was reading this review, which contains the expression "amerikanisch kommen" (actually "wenn du mir jetzt amerikanisch kommst"). This is apparently a translation of a line from an English script. I can't think of a literal back-translation that would make sense in (American) English, though maybe "come American to me" or "come to me American" means something in British English. Can anyone enlighten me on the meaning of this expression? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jemandem XY kommen" roughly means "to behave like the prototypical XY" (or, a bit more literally, "to play the American") . What exactly behaving like an American means in context is a bit difficult to say, especially since I don't know the TV series in question -- Ferkelparade π 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most common usage of "jmd XY kommen" is perhaps "jemandem dumm kommen", which means something like "to be sassy toward someone" or "to turn sassy on someone". I think the "jetzt", at least, implies change of behaviour. The original quote seems to be: "If you're turning American on me, I'll go downstairs." ---Sluzzelin talk 16:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds similar to come the raw prawn (mainly for the use of come to mean imitate). "Come over all American" might work in British English. Card Zero (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about "come the raw prawn", but "come over all American" is probably a bit too passive...the way I understand that expression, it doesn't mean you're doing anything in particular, it's just that other people see you as somehow being or looking American. "Jemandem Amerikanisch kommen" is much more active, it means you're actively and (most probably) purposefully doing something to someone that is somehow very American. -- Ferkelparade π 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to learn a new German idiom. Marco polo (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tu vuo' fa' l'americano/mmericano! mmericano!/ma si nato in Italy! --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

There is no German idiom "amerikanisch kommen". This is only an attempt to translate an English idiom, whatever it was originally, something like "the American way". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally "turning American on me", as mentioned above. I don't think Marco polo understood the replies as suggesting that "jemandem amerikanisch kommen" was a fixed idiom. "Jemandem XY kommen" is a colloquial idiom, however, and exists in several variations. Just googling for the "komm mir nicht XY"-imperative form, yields the mentioned "komm mir nicht dumm!" as well as "komm mir nicht schlau", "komm mir nicht krumm", "komm mir nicht schief", "komm mir nicht akademisch", "komm mir nicht quadratisch", and even "komm mir nicht französisch", to list just a few examples). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

correct form of sentences

Compel executive not to enjoy vacation during holiday
Secretly provide deposit to certain executive by manager

Are the above statements fall in standard English? Thank you--180.234.109.216 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them is a full sentence, just a phrase. And they don't contain all of the necessary words. Compel the (or an) executive not to enjoy his/her vacation days during a holiday and Secretly provide a desposit to a certain executive by the manager would be better, but they still don't really make sense. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In standard English grammar, most sentences follow the following form Subject-Verb-Object. Your sentences have no subject. I would rewrite them as:

You cannot compel executives to enjoy vacation during the holidays.
They secretly provide deposits to a certain executive by the manager.

Though I am just guessing; I am uncertain about what you really mean, since the sentences do not contain complete thoughts. --Jayron32 20:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Executives are not authorized to use office stationaries. Is this sentence correct or should I use allowed instead of authorized?--180.234.109.216 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stationary, not stationaries. And allowed or authorized, either would be correct, depending on what you are trying to say. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stationery (= office supplies), not stationary (= staying in one place). --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] What is an "office stationary"? Do you mean stationery? Authorized would mean that an authority has not given his or her approval for executives to use the stationery, or that executives do not have the authority to use it. Allowed would mean simply that there is a company policy that they are not to use it. While the sentence is grammatical if spelled correctly, neither meaning is very plausible. Who would be allowed or authorized to use office stationery if executives are not? The only way this sentence would be plausible would be if the company had a blanket policy against the use of office stationery. In that case, it would be better to state that clearly. Marco polo (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people seem not to be aware of the difference between 'stationary' and 'stationery', including people actually engaged in the business of providing office stationary [sic] supplies [2]. I've also seen shops proudly proclaiming they sell "confectionary" [sic]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I *always* get those spellings mixed up. :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mnemonic I learned is that stationery is associated with paper, while stationary means staying still. Angr (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Another one is that cutlery, crockery, confectionery and stationery are all physical objects, but stationary is not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]