Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 September 26

< September 25	Language desk archive	September 27 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August	September	October >

capitalisation of 'trompe l'oeil'

If I use the term in a title, do I capitalise the L and the O? Ta Adambrowne666 00:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least, I don't think you capitalize the l... 惑乱分からん 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- also, would it be right to spell the 'oe' in 'l'oeil' as a ligature (Œ)? Adambrowne666 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Seriously, my French knowledge is quite limited... 惑乱分からん 01:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Trompe l'oeil which does not capitalise the L or O (capitalisation is virtually never used for titles in French). The article title does not use an "oe" ligature, but the introduction does: "Trompe-l'œil" so to be technically accurate, yes, you would use it. --Canley 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Adambrowne666 02:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Thailand, following the recent coup d'état, there is an organization called the 19 September Network against Coup d'Etat, which implies, if anything, that even as an English proper noun, you wouldn't capitalize the "l", but you would the "o". freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes sense - in English, we don't capitalise 'the' and 'a' in a title either - thanks againAdambrowne666 06:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a title, the spelling "Trompe-l'œil" would be the rule in French (as in the French article on the same subject). But since the phrase is listed in English-language dictionaries (without the hyphen or the ligature), it should, I think, be considered as an import and hence capitalised as in English. For the same reason, I would have no quarrel with the newspaper title mentioned above, even though, funnily enough, in my edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, it is spelled as "coup d'état" (with an accent), whereas the "real" French spelling is "coup d'État" (with both an accent and a capital). Mu 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What grammatical voice is this?

Is anyone familiar with the phenomenon where a transitive verb, in certain contexts (often informally), becomes a passive verb? For example:

John doesn't scare easily for John isn't easily scared
The wood won't cut for The wood cannot be cut

Is this the middle voice or something else? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle is right. Also mediopassive. --Ptcamn 02:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantically middle, morphologically active (i.e. "scare" and "cut" with intransitive meanings). Petrouchka 11:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this Language Log entry. —Keenan Pepper 03:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the 3rd inst - what does this mean?

When I started working life after completing secretarial college, some 25 years ago I remember a boss who would dictate a sentence commencing . . .

On the third inst

I think it may have referred to the current month. I know there are other words that refer to the previous month and the next month. Does anyone know what they are?

Inst. means the current month.--Light current 02:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inst. is short for instant and means the current month. Ult. = ultimo is the previous month. I have been looking for the corresponding word for "next month" for years and have not yet discovered it. —Blotwell 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Inst." is short for instante mense, meaning "this month". "Ult." is short for ultimo mense, meaning "last month". And "next month" was "prox.", short for proximo mense. All Latin phrases, and very much outdated now. JackofOz 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though you have to admit, they sound pretty cool. "I'll be going to a Nine Inch Nails concert proximo mense." freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even better if you translate Nine Inch Nails into Latin. Anybody? JackofOz 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could probably do a Latin translation akin to "I will be going to the popular musical group named "Nine Inch Nails"' concert proximo mense or similar. (Inches would probably be better than Centimeters for Latin, I'd guess...) 惑乱分からん 10:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nine inches would be a half palmus. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Maybe, palmus medius? 惑乱分からん 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clavi nonunciales? Adam Bishop 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore

I want to describe someone as "hardcore" (in a good sense) but I lack the words to adequately quantify their "hardcoreness". I want to say something like "You're so hardcore I told me mom"... can anyone help me find a stronger way to describe my feelings? (in an email) freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so hardcore you throw stones at windows? :) Rentwa 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by hardcore. It has a number of meanings, but the only "good sense" in my Oxford is "uncompromising". Is that what you want to say? The word can of course be misconstrued, as it is more usually assciated with pornography.--Shantavira 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so hardcore that you don't cry: not because you can't, but because the tears are afraid to come out. Just use a Chuck Norrisesque line. --AstoVidatu 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To a person who likes hardcore, or wants to be hardcor,e, "you're hardcore" is a supreme compliment. It doesn't have any complimentary meaning, of course. Still can't seem to fully express what I'm feeling... freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it frequently used by young males as a generic term of praise for a person or thing that, in some way, is considered formidably admirable or admirably formidable. "This pizza's hardcore, dude." "Your mom buys you beer? That's hardcore, bro." Surely this sense is somewhat regional, and I doubt anything like it has made it into the OED yet. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'United' in German

United States in German is Vereinigte Staaten, whereas United Nations is Vereinte Nationen. Could someone please explain the difference between vereinigte and vereinte. Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two participles are close to synonymous. They can both mean united. In certain contexts there is a slight difference in meaning. 'Sich vereinigen' can refer to an alliance or coalescence with one or several parties. 'Sich vereinen' may refer to a looser, less formal kind of union. Often it's merely a matter of convention. For instance, 'mit vereinten Kräften' is a phrase meaning 'with a combined effort' or 'with united forces', while 'mit vereinigten Kräften' is not a common phrase at all. This is all off the top of my head, perhaps someone with access to a Spezialduden or so can give a more educated answer. ---Sluzzelin 08:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another reason is that the use of these words has changed over time? The Vereinigte Staaten are much older than the Vereinte Nationen, after all. —da Pete (ばか) 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I can witness the same phenomenon in my native Serbo-Croatian—only the USA has Sjedinjene Američke Države while there are Ujedinjene Nacije, Ujedinjeni Arapski Emirati. "Sjedinjen" means roughly "conjoined", and USA is the only context where it is used for a political entity (I'd expect to find it mostly in recipes), and is thus "idiomatic". Maybe it's a Russism (Соединённые), dunno. Duja 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little playing around with interwiki links show that Соединённый is used for the US and the UK, while Объединённый is used for the UN and the UAE. Just as a data point. Tesseran 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in German the United Nations seem to be the exception - several countries and entities follow the USA's example and use 'vereinigte' in their name. Examples: 'Die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate' (the United Arab Emirates), 'das Vereinigte Königreich' (correct translation of the United Kingdom which, unlike in English, is hardly ever used in German, where the UK is either referred to as 'UK', 'Grossbrittannien' or even 'England'), 'Die Vereinigte Niederlande' also exists, referring to the historical Dutch Republic of seven provinces. Then there was the 'Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG', a German steel monopolist which helped arm Germany in the 1930s. Besides the UN (Vereinte Nationen), I can't think of many entities using the word 'Vereinte' in their title. I'm sure they exist, but google only gave me sci-fi entities ('Die Vereinten Mächte'/The United Powers - 'Die Vereinten Welten'/The United Worlds) or unspecific references which weren't titular. Maybe it has to do with formality and titularity. ---Sluzzelin 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have to do with the strength of the "union"? Even federal nation-states such as the United States have a single central government and act as "one," at least when it comes to foreign affairs. The United States, the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser degree, the United Arab Emirates are united as one in terms of government, monetary policy, and so on. However, the United Nations is united as many. I suspect that the choice of "vereinte" might have reflected the status of the UN as a "Verein" of nations. Similarly, I think it might be more apt to refer to the EU as "Vereintes Europa" than as "Vereinigtes Europa". Does this sound right to a native speaker? I think Sluzzelin may have been onto something when he/she suggested that "vereinen" meant more "combine" than "merge or unite". Marco polo 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "vereinte" might be closer in connotation to unified than to united. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Marco and Bhumiya have hit the Nagel on the Kopf.---Sluzzelin 05:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French : que les gens font-ils , incorrect? but why?

Hello,

I'm a little ashamed I still don't know this.. but :

I am struggling with inversion in French:

"Viennent-ils?" This is a simple yes or no question with inversion.

"Les garçons viennent-ils" This is yes/no inversion with more than just a personal pronoun.

"Pourquoi les garçons viennent-ils?" This is a question-word question with inversion and with more than just a personal pronoun.

But why is it "Que font les hommes?" and not "Que les hommes font-ils?"

1. It is true, right??? That the first is correct, the second isn't??

2. Why? Is this an exceptional case? Please don't tell me languages have exceptions (I'm aware of that) but I'd like to know what kind of exception it is. Does it only apply here, or are there a few other cases? Is there some sort of easy rule implying this?

Please be careful with spelling because I am afraid a random page in French is not necessarily written correctly(I even found stuff like "Ils ont achetés")

Thanks! Evilbu 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any real reason off the top of my head, but I suspect the latter just looks very awkward and the former is used for simplicity's sake. It's sorta like "what do the men?" vs "what the men do they?" or something. -- the GREAT Gavini 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My French is a bit weak, but these forms are all rather formal, I believe. I think that the usual way of forming questions in French is to begin with "Est-ce que", followed by a statement of the fact whose truth one wants to ascertain, e.g. "Est-ce que les garçons viennent?" or "Les garçons, est-ce qu'ils viennent?" Or, if you are asking about an object, begin with "Qu'est-ce que", e.g. "Qu'est-ce que les hommes font?" or "Les hommes, qu'est-ce qu'ils font?" Marco polo 18:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can say: "Les hommes, que font-ils?", like you can say: "Les garçons, d’où viennent-ils?" I don't know the rule that permits you to put "pourquois" in front but not "que" and "d’où", but it seems that "pourquois" is the exception. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only learned French for two semesters at Swedish municipal adult education, so I don't know how fit I am to answer this, but I'd say "font-ils" is akin to "do they do?", and just as "What men do they do?" looks awkward in English, "Que les hommes font-ils?" looks awkward in French. Both "Les garçons viennent-ils" and "Pourquoi les garçons viennent-ils?" looks strange to me... Also, it helped me to interpret "Est-ce que" literally as an old form for "Is it that" and "Qu'est-ce que" as an old form for "What is it that"... Could just be me, though, and I haven't learned much French since then... 惑乱分からん 23:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native speaker and I tried all the question markers like Pourquoi, D'où, Quand, Comment, Qui, Avec qui, Où, etc. all with a number of verbs.

It is clear that "Que" always sounds weird in these structures. "D'où ces gens viennent-ils ?" "Quand les prisonniers mangent-ils ?" "Avec qui Marie vient-elle ?": always fine. All these pronouns cannot be the object of the verb, maybe that is related. "Que les filles voient-elles ?" is weird because it seems you should not have a double subject if the object is before the verb, instead of being after it. But "Comment les filles voient-elles les garcons ?" is not weird, just formal. The object is after the verb. But is it Ok to say "Qui les garcons aiment-ils ?", where the object is before the verb. "Que les garcons aiment-ils ?" does not work at all, although just one letter is different. So it seems to me that "Que" is the exception - always weird with a double subject, unlike the other interrogative pronouns, which just cause the sentence to be formal. Why is "Que" the exception? Still couldn't think of anything.

And to answer Wakuran "Pourquoi les garcons viennent-ils ?" is not strange, just a bit formal. Lgriot 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to make a distinction between "formal but correct" and "just wrong". So what would you do then "Les filles, pourquoi viennent-elles?" Is that something you would say?Evilbu 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes - the construction is perfectly correct though used only for emphasis or in everyday informal speech. (2) The rule for the more formal construction Quand les garçons viennent-ils ? is that it is used only with an intransitive verb (which is why *Que les hommes font-ils ? is incorrect). Mu 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mu, thank you. Essentially, you were answering my original question (right?) and I hope you can forgive me for changing your indentation.Evilbu 22:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I was in fact attempting at first to answer your last question, and then I belatedly added an answer to your first question. All rather confusing - hence perhaps my somewhat confused indentation :-) Mu 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that transitivity is the sole factor: "Pourquoi les garçons mangent-ils des pommes ?" works fine for me, and the verb is transitive. Also "Qui Marie aime-t-elle ?" is transitive and the object is the pronoun. It is very formal but works (at least for me). There seems to be something specific with "Que ... ?". Lgriot 07:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have to admit that your apples have caught me out. There is indeed something specific about que, at least according to this site, which says: "If the sentence begins with que and has a noun subject, you cannot use inversion. You must use the order que + verb + noun subject [as in] Que fait Telesfore ?". This would seem to make more sense. Ah, la grammaire ! Mu 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why "Ils ont achetés" was singled out. Would it not be correct to say "Voilà les disques que ils ont achetés"? Notinasnaid 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Voilà les disques qu'ils ont achetés" would be correct, yes, but not "Ils ont achetés des disques". Lgriot 13:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]