Language desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11

Different word orders in Latin

Would I be scorned for writing Latin in subject-verb-object style? Do most educators insist on subject-object-verb? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scorned? Perhaps not. But you'd be identifying yourself as someone who (a) speaks an SVO language and (b) formulates their thoughts in their native language, and then translates them into Latin, rather than thinking directly of the Latin words for the concepts they want to speak of. SOV is neither mandatory nor uniform, but it is the commonest standard, and it's best to learn how to that, so that if you see an apparently fluent reader use a different order, you'll recognise that it stands out. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, like in any language, a sentence is usually a lot more complex than subject-verb-object. It's just a general guideline that in Latin, the order is subject-object-verb. Latin uses SVO sometimes too, like Caesar's "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres". Doesn't that look like it was written and translated by a native English speaker? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of exception I was talking about at the end of my comment. For comparison, here's a slab from further down the first chapter of De Bello Gallico:

His rebus adducti et auctoritate Orgetorigis permoti constituerunt ea quae ad proficiscendum pertinerent comparare, iumentorum et carrorum quam maximum numerum coemere, sementes quam maximas facere, ut in itinere copia frumenti suppeteret, cum proximis civitatibus pacem et amicitiam confirmare. Ad eas res conficiendas biennium sibi satis esse duxerunt; in tertium annum profectionem lege confirmant. Ad eas res conficiendas Orgetorix deligitur. Is sibi legationem ad civitates suscipit. In eo itinere PERSUADET Castico, Catamantaloedis filio, Sequano, cuius pater regnum in Sequanis multos annos obtinuerat et a senatu populi Romani amicus appellatus erat, ut regnum in civitate sua occuparet, quod pater ante habuerit; itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat ac maxime plebi acceptus erat, ut idem conaretur persuadet eique filiam suam in matrimonium dat. Perfacile factu ESSE illis probat conata perficere, propterea quod ipse suae civitatis imperium obtenturus esset: non ESSE dubium quin totius Galliae plurimum Helvetii possent; se suis copiis suoque exercitu illis regna conciliaturum confirmat. Hac oratione adducti inter se fidem et ius iurandum dant et regno occupato per tres potentissimos ac firmissimos populos totius Galliae sese potiri posse sperant.

That's clause-final indicative verbs in bold and clause-final infinitive verbs in italic. The three words in ALL CAPS are the only verbs of either kind that I could find other than at the ends of their clauses; in all three cases there's a good structural reason for their different position. So yes, Caesar's opening sentence stands out - which is how word order is used in Latin. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres" is really not SVO. The subject is "Gallia omnis", and there's no object in any ordinary sense. AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game rules interpretation

I have recently bought a table game and am having difficulty interpreting the rules.

Basically, at the start of the game, players are given cards of two types (Type “A” and Type “B”) of which they must keep some and discard others. The line in the rules that I have problems with is…

“At the start of the game, each player is dealt 1 Type “A” and 3 type “B” cards, of which he must keep at least two”

Does this imply that a player must start with a minimum of three cards (one Type “A” and two Type “B”) or with a minimum of two (optionally discarding the Type “A” card and one type “B”)?

Many thanks in advance for your help CoeurDeHamster (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best we can do from that information would be to say "it's ambiguous". It could reasonably be interpreted in either of the ways you've suggested. Maybe if you tell us what the game is we might know someone who's played it who can help. Alternatively, read further on through the rules to see if you pick up any hints - for example, if it refers to playing 3 cards at a time, this would suggest you need a minimum of 3 cards in your hand. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. I guess I could go to boardgamegeek to get a definitive answer, but I was more interested in the opinion of a language expert. It would appear that, as written, the rule is ambiguous. FYI, the game is "Ticket to Ride - Legendry Asia", one of the family of TTR games. Others in the family have this same concept, notably "Ticket To Ride - Europe" but there the rules are explicit saying that the player has to start the game with a minimum of two cards; but the rules have been amended for this newer game. Also, for clarification, the Type "A" cards are "Long Route" cards and Type "B" are "Regular Destination" cards. Many thanks indeed for your help. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?

In a Gangnam Style parody, there is a line "She can put Target to God. She gobble gay." (search for "Gangnam Style misheard lyrics"). I know that it is just a mondegreen of the original Korean line, but please explain it's meaning, as if it makes some sense, using figurative meanings of words like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something sounds like words, doesn't mean it conveys meaning. I suggest you apply your own meaning to this nonsense, just as you have applied your own interpretation to the Korean sounds. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" although nonsensical, there are attempts to deduce a meaning from it (see the article). I want you to do the same with the misheard Korean line above. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She can put Target to God; she gobble gay" is simply a reference to a female person who voraciously consumes lightheartedness or homosexuality and suggests that God shop at Target. Isn't this obvious? Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the OP will put an effort to ask the question if it is that obvious to him/her. 203.112.82.128 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese "fodase"

When someone, like Cristiano Ronaldo, says "fodase", does it mean 'fuck you' (referring a concrete person) or something like 'fuck' (general). 95.20.142.95 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's "fuck you" because the phrase has the accusative case pronoun se (to you). Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "literally"

Recently on NPR, I've heard them use the word "literally" in a way that I think is wrong. What I'm wondering is if I'm correct or they are.

The first time was in a story about the trial of Whitey Bulger where the reporter said that Bolger was "...literally above the law..." The second was in a story about the recent college shootings in California. They were reporting on the story as it was happening and the reporter said that events were "...literally unfolding..."

The way I see this is that both "above the law" and "unfolding" are being used in a metaphorical sense and cannot therefore be literal. Am I right? Dismas|^(talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think about it like this, literally should be used when describing something that is actually happening, the proper form to use in the phrases above would be "figuratively" which describes things more metaphorically. Example: "I am literally on fire." should mean that I am actually ablaze! While "I am figuratively on fire" would mean that I feel like I am on fire. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- One thing that always bothered me is the way people object to using the word "literally" like this. As though it is the only word in the English language to be immune to poetic hyperbole. Yes, we know you aren't on fire, but the sense of exaggeration and hyperbole is understood by both the speaker and the listener in this usage, and people who get upset over this usage seem to me to be baseless in their objections, insofar as this is literally the only word that they pretend can't be used in an exaggerated manner. --Jayron32 05:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one you certainly are. For the second one, if the reporter said "literally unfolding as I speak" or something similar, and the events were actually taking place at that very time, I would probably cut the reporter some slack. Anyway misuse of "literally" is very common. Looie496 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are "incorrect" uses of literally - however, in common usage the word has begun to be used more as a sort of superlative than as a word that means "not metaphorically". My favourite example was when a local newspaper claimed that a football team, after a one-sided defeat, had been "literally disembowled". Yikes!

Policing language is a generally futile endeavour, however. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"disembowled" - pity it wasn't a cricket match. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

He's literally just eaten the fourth official - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why would the audience stay and watch that? Well The audience are literally electrified and glued to their seats]. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds exciting, in a sedentary way. Here's someone who literally dies when people use the word "literally" incorrectly. He must have quite a lot of practice in dying now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. "Literally" has undergone semantic bleaching and has become, in some uses, a grammatical word without any meaning except to portray emphasis, instead of the original lexical/content word that has a distinct meaning of "not exaggerating". Unlike some of the above posters, I deny that this is "incorrect" usage; the language has merely changed. Lsfreak (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as "unique" is no longer used (by some people) to mean, uniquely, "the only one of its kind" but "wonderful, excellent, fantastic ...", and is even usually encountered in its superlative degree ("He's literally the most unique singer around today"). One could characterise that as language change, but some people still have their standards and won't be coming to that particular party any time soon. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally tolerant of language drift -- the thing here is that "literally" and "unique" are essential words: without them having their proper meanings, it is often quite difficult to say something precisely. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've too. Literally. No such user (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel R. Delany likes to point out that science fiction requires more careful reading than mundane literature, because it can be more literal. When an SF writer writes, "He turned on his left side", she may literally mean that the character turned on his left side: that he reached over with his right hand and flipped a switch, activating the left side of his body; or that in a sort of corporeal civil war, he turned on his left side, attacking it with his right; or that he in some matter caused his left side to become aroused (turned on). When the writer of a novelization says of a certain princess, "Her world exploded", it is meant not as a metaphor of disruption, but literally: her home planet blew up into many thousands of fragments and ceased to exist as an entity. The root meaning of literally is valuable for purposes like this, and I deeply mourn the idea that it will be lost. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. Wiktionary wikt:literal has "read or understood without additional interpretation", which makes me ask "in addition to what?", and "exactly as stated", which as you point out is problematic when there are several possible "exact" interpretations. To make matters worse, there can be layers of metaphor. In the case of "above the law", it could mean:

Floating in space above the abstract concept "law" (woah),
Having complete freedom of action without being brought to justice (more metaphorical),
Kind sorta seeming like number 2, but not really (very metaphorical).

So if "literally above the law" means "number 2, not number 3", and that matches reality, then it's a true statement and a valid use of "literal". There is no such thing as "exact meaning", there are only good guesses, and "literal" itself can't be taken literally. Though if it's just being used as a generic intensifier, that's sloppy. Card Zero (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, only part of that phrase may be metaphorical - for example: only the word 'law' is a metaphorism for a police officer, and translates as physically located above the police officer. Half-metaphors like this is a root of bad puns. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What language is this?

Wikipedia:Help desk#My English is very poor? Usually you go to Google Translate and it detects (here it said Afrikaans which appears wrong) and if that doesn't work, you drop one or more words into Google and can suss it out. Here, every word alone finds nothing at all. I am assuming "'Sïīljłacana-Repałïća Wikipajïïljoś" is "something Republic Wikipedia"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I was of a more suspicious frame of mind than would be appropriate for an online encyclopaedia, I might possibly surmise that it was a language created by a supernatural creature originating in Norse folklore, lately to be found lurking on our reference desks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly certain it's mock-Estonian. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put my neck out and call it probably Trollish. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Okay, that sounds about right.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original question from the help desk:

Iïïeroëter editenïjïl artikāle-plessïs 'Sïīljłacana-Repałïća' Wikipajïïljoś, hartbïēéte īìjîlá ?

My English is very poor but if you can understand language I need Wikipedian assistance. My English is limited. Thanks

(Copied to this desk by μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

and didn't trolls originate in norwegian folklore??165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]