Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 December 29

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

December 29

Throw your mother's old shoes

Please translate into Cantonese. Thanks. If anyone wonders, I heard this phrase in a movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.189.61.79 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Fourteenth Century Old English of words "Iesus" and "god"

In the Fourteenth Century I understand that the words "Iesus" and "Jesus" were used interchangable. Is this correct? Would that be considered a time period (1350 +/-) for the transition of the letter "I" to the usage of the letter "J" instead for this word? Would this then be for Latin usage at this time period? In this time period would the word "Iesus" have been more common place than with the "J"? I understand by the 17th Century then the letter "J" was MUCH more distinguished. I am thinking in the middle of the Fourteenth Century that the letter "I" would have been more commonplace; is that correct? Could also the word "god" been Old English (Fourteenth Century) for "good"; as in good morals. Was this word of "god" in common usage then meaning what we would refer to today as just plain "good". Perhaps over time the second "o" got added? --Doug 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard that the words "good" and "god", although both Common Germanic, weren't related. 惑乱 分からん 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The forms "J" and "I" were used interchangeably and were just two different ways of writing the same letter. As our article J explains, "J" did not come into existence as a separate letter until the late 16th century. It did not win general acceptance as the standard spelling of the initial sound in the name "Jesus" until sometime in the 17th century. The words "god" and "good" have always been two distinct words. As Wakuran says, the words come from two different Germanic roots. The pronunciation and spelling of each has changed over the centuries, but they were never the same word. The form of English used in the 14th century was not Old English, but instead Middle English. Middle English did not have standardized or consistent spellings for words. That is, the same word might be, and often was, spelled in various different ways. The most common spelling for the modern word "good" was "gode" (pronounced something like "go:dɘ" (IPA) or "goada") and the most common spelling for "god" was "god" (pronounced "gɔd" (IPA), or much as it is pronounced today in British Received Pronunciation, or like "gawd" in General American but with the vowel much shorter). Marco polo 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction of Middle English. Looking at those sites I can NOW see the difference. Also this has put MUCH more light on the letters of "I" and that of "J" and when "J" came into play. As you can see above, I was a little suspicious that the letter "J" started its usage in the Fourteenth Century. This is made much more clear in sub-article "The J in Jehovah" of Tetragrammaton. I am not a religious person and know nothing of church history. You have filled in many gaps. Interesting what you say of the meaning of the word "Jesus" being "I am" or "He that causes to be". The one that causes to be sounds like something similiar to (or related to) the word "concept" or the word "idea". An "idea" is he that causes to be. This is like a general notion, conception, something that is brought about. I am just looking at this as similarities; from the viewpoint of a non religious person. I just happen to see similarities. He that cuase to be is "one that causes to be" and to me is the definition of IDEA or that of a concept; which is similar to "I am the one who is." An "Idea" is one who is a concept or an innovation (basically same thing). I know that from a "religious" viewpoint this would be incorrect. But like I say, I am NOT a "religious" person. How I see this then would be completely DIFFERENT than from any religious viewpoint. So I guess what I am saying is that perhaps I do not view this as a historical person of some 2000 years ago. Just as a concept or "idea" which is something certainly different that from a "religious" viewpoint. Thanks again for your help. You have certainly given me some EXCELLENT clues and "ideas".... --Doug 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

There's an extensive answer to this same question on Humanities reference desk... AnonMoos 01:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of word "Jesus"

I notice under Biblical names the meaning is "Jehovah is salvation; deliverer; help" and Jehovah is "self-subsisting". This then puts the first part of the definition (meaning) as "self-subsisting is salvation". Could I get a further explanation on this. Also is there a further explanation for the definition of "deliverer; help" as part of the word ('Iesus') origination. Is there a further definition in an ancient language of these words of "Jehovah" and "Jesus", perhaps even in one of the Semitic languages or in an ancient Persian language? --Doug 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The meanings under Biblical names should not be combined in this way. The original source of the two names, "Jesus" and "Jehovah", is Hebrew. These names do not come from another Semitic language, and certainly not from ancient Persian. Let's start with "Jehovah". This is actually a European form of the Hebrew name "YHWH". For a discussion of the forms of this name, see Tetragrammaton and Yahweh. Tetragrammaton has a discussion of the meaning of this word, which seems to be either "I am" or "He that causes to be". Whatever its original meaning, the word "YHWH" (whose original pronunciation is unknown, partly because the pronunciation of this name became forbidden at some point in Jewish history) came to be used simply as the name of God, just as the name of God in Arabic is "Allah". The name "Jesus" is a form of the Hebrew name "Joshua" or "Yehoshua". The native language of Jesus, if he was a historical figure, would have been Aramaic, and the Aramaic form of "Joshua" was something like "Yeshua", which was written in Greek as "Iesous" (pronounced "Yay soos"), which became "Iesus" in Latin and "Jesus" in English. According to our article Joshua, this name means "YHWH saves". It does not mean that anything else saves, only that the god named "YHWH" saves. Marco polo 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling and pronunciation of the Greek in Marco polo's reply. Note further that in the transliterations of the Hebrew and Aramaic the letters "J" and "Y" are really the same letter in the original (yod), which sounds like the English consonant "Y".  --Lambiam^Talk 20:36, December 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Lambiam! Marco polo 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikitionary. - Patricknoddy 8:31am, January 2, 2006 (EST)

American Independece - Greek lnaguage

Was the Greek language not considered a possible language for the United States shortly after its Independence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.135.164 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Since about 99.9392272 procent of the population did not know a word of Greek, that cannot have been a serious proposal. I never heard of such a thing. There is an urban legend that German was almost accepted as the official language; see German in the United States.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of decimal places, considering that the 1790 census was only accurate to ±41%... —Keenan Pepper 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was roughly 26.8941278% off.  --Lambiam^Talk 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Again according to popular myth, Greek might have been suggested at one time in the late 18th century, because it was the language spoken in Athens, arguably the world's first democracy. On this PBS site I found a ten year old essay suggesting that Congress ban English instead of making it a statutory official language in the U.S. (which it currently isn't). The essay brushes revolutionary discussions on official language and also mentions 18th century "Roger Sherman of Connecticut" who "supposedly remarked that it would be better to keep English for ourselves and make the British speak Greek." ---Sluzzelin 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about ancient Greek or modern Greek? Because it would be pretty weird to take modern Greek, almost as wacky as taking-o let's say- Latin as universal language in churches.

I've heard of this too - I think it may be from a Trivial Pursuit card. The question goes something like "which nation considered English, German, French, and Greek [not sure about French] as official languages upon independence," with the US as the answer. I realize that even Trivial Pursuit isn't infalliable, but surely they can't have simply drawn this out of thin air...? -Elmer Clark 08:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They'd never pull it out of thin air, but maybe someone deliberately planted the false information somewhere as a trap for copyright violations, and Trivial Pursuit took it from there. ---Sluzzelin 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)