Language desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

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.

April 17

multikulti

I'm looking for the German transcript and English translation of the video here. The link is an excerpt of the larger speech or speeches. I'm looking for those (the German transcript and English translation) as well.68.148.186.93 (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete video and multikulti part. My transcript of [0:16-0:41]: "Und wir sind ein Land, das im Übrigen Anfang der 60er-Jahre die Gastarbeiter nach Deutschland geholt hat. Und jetzt leben sie bei uns. Wir haben uns eine Weile lang in die Tasche gelogen. Wir haben gesagt, die werden schon nicht bleiben. Irgendwann werden sie weg sein. Das ist nicht die Realität. Und natürlich war der Ansatz – zu sagen, jetzt machen wir hier mal Multikulti und leben so nebeneinander her und freuen uns übereinander – dieser Ansatz ist gescheitert, absolut gescheitert." --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamian name for Egypt

What did the people of Sumer, Babylon and Assyria call the land of Egypt and its people in their languages?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest recorded name, in Akkadian, is Misru - similar to the Hebrew Mitzrayim and the Arabic Misr which is still used. These languages are all Semitic, and derive from words meaning the border, or the frontier. Given the continuity of the basic form, it seems likely that all Semitic peoples used something similar. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little further research shows that a possible Sumerian name for Egypt was Magan - though this may have been somewhere else on the sea route round Arabia, rather than Egypt proper. Sumerian was not a Semitic language, while Assyrian and Babylonian were, and evolved from Akkadian. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ancient terms for distant lands tended to be rather imprecise, as they often weren't sure of the geography, location occupied by a particular people, political structures in the area, etc. Also, land between cities was often no-man's-land, not under the control of anyone in particular. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Wikipedia templates

In Wikipedias written in non-Latin alphabet scripts, the template parameters are often in English - for example, Hindi Wikipedia. However, a large proportion of Hindi speakers also speak English. Are there any Wikipedias in which the language of templates is not the home language of the Wikipedia, and is also not English? astro (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some (but not all) of Alemannic Wikipedia's templates are in Standard German, and not in any of the Alemannic variants als.wp normally uses. Example: als:Vorlage:Literatur. But that's not a very interesting example, as virtually all editors there not only understand German, but are also more used to reading and writing it than they are with any of their Alemannic dialects. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese translation needed for new article?

Hi. I am planning a new article but I need a translation for this image. It is above a building entrance in Macau. Thank you! --Strasząmerykanów (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could translate the image to JPEG easily enough. —Tamfang (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

輝滔大廈 -- "大廈" just means "Building", you can get the standard transliterations for the other two characters from Wiktionary, but they are something like "Fai Tou". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy around definition of present perfect?

Do some grammarians (a minority or an alternative, nowadays or on the past) consider sentences like:

'Paul has broken his leg'

not to be in the present perfect tense? --Llaanngg (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. How did this come up?

The only thing I can think of that might be prompting your question is not so much the definition of present perfect, as the definition of tense. I believe some might take the position that the sentence is in the present tense with the perfect (or "perfective"?) aspect --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then it could be nitpicking about naming it an aspect instead of a tense.

However, could it also be nitpicking about the choice of tense?

Wouldn't "he broke his leg." be more appropriate? After all, the action is not happening up to the present. It has finished. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of emphasis. When you say "he has broken his leg", you are calling attention to his right-now state of having-broken-his-leg, rather than to the past action of the leg breaking. --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, does "have" + "past participle" always imply present perfect? Maybe excluding the passive construction "have" + "been", or the modal construction "would" + "have past part." ?Llaanngg (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been variations in the terms used. When I first studied grammar, "I have eaten" was just called the perfect tense (rather than the present perfect) and "I had eaten" was the pluperfect (which now appears to have been replaced with past perfect). The rule seems quite simple - if the auxiliary is in the present tense, it is the present perfect, if it is in the past tense it is the past perfect, if it is in the future tense ("I will have eaten") it is the future perfect. All perfect tenses imply that the event described has ongoing consequences. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've often encountered an idea (particularly on the "English language learners" site on stackexchange), that the use of perfect or non-perfect tenses is clear-cut, or expresses an objective difference in the events described. Mostly, it does not. One or other form is incompatible with certain explicit expressions of time; but in general, the difference is not in the objective events, but in how the speaker is choosing to frame the event, and so either option is possible. In every circumstance in which "He has broken his leg" is possible, so is "He broke his leg": usually, if this is a recent event and/or he is still suffering or recuperating, the present relevance is enough that we would choose to use the perfect; but there is nothing wrong with the simple past - it just treats the event as finished, in a way that we wouldn't normally do.

And, yes, "have + past participle" is characteristically and necessarily perfect, present or past as the "have" is present or past. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure in Australia

Whats 'Go figure' mean in Australian?--178.99.232.11 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote any text where you found it and it didn't had the standard meaning of: "Go figure that one out!"--Llaanngg (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was on a web video. Yes, I suppose it could mean what you say. I thought it may be something rude!--178.99.232.11 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be rude, if meaning "what kind of person makes such decision." --Llaanngg (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See wiktionary:go figure, which describes it as generally American:

(idiomatic) Expresses perplexity, puzzlement, or surprise (as if telling somebody to try to make sense of the situation). The car wouldn't start yesterday no matter what I did, but today it works just fine. Go figure.

Perhaps it has additional meaning in Australia, but this usage is not inherently rude, though it could be rude depending on the context. An example of rude usage would be if it were said ironically, meaning "I told you so." -- ToE 13:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think (in Australian English) it could either mean, literally, the preceding was perplexing, or it could mean "there is an obvious deduction there which I am not saying, but you can figure it out yourself", as in "go figure why". If used in an angry polemic, it probably means the latter. For example, (fictional example) "The banks donate millions to the main parties. Parliament has just voted to give a tax break to the banks. Go figure." However, I don't think that's unique to Australian English, it's also used in this way in American English, right? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's used in the US. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I think the English equivalent would be: 'You work it out'! Which I suppose means the same.--178.99.232.11 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]