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[edit]

Latin: hoc aliquid[edit]

Please explain this sentence to me: "... the soul, though form of the body and moving principle of the body, is also much more than this, and can subsist by itself, being hoc aliquid, though as a hoc aliquid which is partly passive and mutable it must have in it spiritual matter. Omidinist (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're working on the 13th century chapter of Copleston's A History of Philosophy, where he's talking about Bonaventure. Hoc aliquid is a translation of Aristotle's τόδε τι, literally 'this something'. Like you, I'm struggling with that sentence, but on hoc aliquid see Aquinas and the Ship of Theseus: Solving Puzzles about Material Objects, where Christopher M. Brown says: "A subsistent thing or a hoc aliquid is either 1. something that subsists and is incomplete in its species or 2. something that subsists and is complete in its species. Getting clear on what Aquinas means by being subsistent and being complete in species will help us understand what he takes a substance to be since he thinks that only a hoc aliquid that has both of these features counts as a substance." See also Saint Bonaventure at the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Smith, J.A. Tode ti in Aristotle, Classical Review 35 (1921) 19. Xn4 13:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'd say it's a less restrictive term than "substance" (with which it is, however, synonymous in some philosophical contexts). On almost any understanding it's an appropriate term to use here, since, whereas anything with a soul is certainly a substance, the question is whether we are or are not going to say that the soul per se is a substance, "subsists by itself/completely," etc. Wareh (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite useful, Xn4 and Wareh. Thanks. In the meantime, I found an illustrative article about it:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omidinist (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC) A much more revealing article: [2] Omidinist (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pakaluk's view is definitely a careful one on Aristotle's usage, and his links to his other blog posts on this subject are worth following. I'd just apply the caveat that the most satisfactory modern understandings of Aristotle are certainly not guaranteed to be identical to the concepts deployed by any given Scholastic. In case it's helpful, here's a definition from the Glossary in Terry Irwin and Gail Fine's Aristotle: Selections (ISBN 0915145677), which I would confidently recommend to you as the single most useful one-volume introduction to Aristotle through his actual texts:

“

THIS, tode ti

The Greek might be rendered (1) 'this something' (e.g., this dog); (2) 'some this', i.e., either (2a) some particular thing or (2b) something of some kind (e.g. some dog).
'This' is a standard way of referring to the category of substance, and being a this is especially characteristic of substance (though perhaps not confined to substance; cf. Catg. 1b6, 3b10, GC 318b15). See APo 73b7, GC 317b19, 21, 319a12, DA 402a24, Met. 1017b24-26, 1029a28.
A this is numerically ONE, in contrast to a 'such' (see QUALITY), Catg. 3b10-13, Top. 178b38, Phys. 190b25n, Met. 1039a1. Aristotle often seems to assume that if a this is numerically one, it is also a PARTICULAR. Since he requires a SUBSTANCE to be a this, he seems to imply that a substance must be a particular (see Met. 1029a28, 1038b5, 1042a29). But the claim that substance is a particular is sometimes thought to be inconsistent with Aristotle's view (in Met. vii) that substance is to be identified with form. See further FORM #9, SUBSTANCE #3.

”

I think you can see from the plentiful cross-references to other glossary entries and to the texts included in the volume's anthology how useful a tool it is to begin inquiries into such questions. Wareh (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Wareh! Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin quickie![edit]

Hi Wikipeoples! What does Sui Daemon mean to you? Is it grammatically correct? Would you write it in another way so you make its meaning clearer? (If you need context, please say so.) Thanks in advance! Kreachure (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could occur as part of a grammatically correct sentence, but it's a little difficult to assign an unambiguous meaning to just those words standing in isolation... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The demon of himself/herself'? Sorry, I have not done Latin for 15 years. --ChokinBako (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The spirit of its own [missing noun]"? – Daemon is Greek, isn't it? —Tamfang (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think it only makes sense if it's within a sentence? Because "the spirit of its own" alone makes sense to me, as much as "the demon of himself/herself" (if you think of it as "its own spirit", right?) I thought I could use it in a fashion similar to sui generis, as in "It will meet its own demise; a sui daemon kind of venture." I hope you know what I mean?

And yes, I know it's made up and no one would say that in real life, I want to know if you could say it and not be a Latin lamer in the process! :) Kreachure (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because daemon is nominative singular (or possibly accusative? I don't know its gender or declension) and sui is either genitive singular or nominative plural; to go together they need to agree in case, gender and number. The idiom "of one's own" is unique to English so far as I know. —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I guess "of one's own" is a partitive; akin to the French form de l'eau, literally 'of the water', meaning 'some water'. —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suum genus means "its own kind." Sui generis is this phrase in the genitive case, which means "of its own kind." A venture "of its own [unique] kind" makes sense, but note that in your phrase "a sui daemon kind of venture," you still need the word "kind." The phrase you want is suus daemon, "its own daemon," and the question is what to do with it. Putting it in the genitive case à la sui generis (sui daemonis) might almost be intelligible, though it's not really parallel. Secundum genium suum, "[that unfolds] in accordance with its own genius" might be closer to Latin of a sort. Better, forget Latin and quote the Greek inscription at Jim Morrison's grave, kata ton daimona heautou, which means "in accordance with his/its own daimon. Wareh (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wow. That was certainly what I wanted to know, and then some. Thanks!! Kreachure (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grove in spanish[edit]

how would you say "grove" as in a group of tress in spanish? the only thing i can think of is alameda, but thats a tree lined road isnt it?

Hi! I think the most direct translation would be arboleda, which indeed refers to a grouping of trees in an area. But since grove usually talks about a group of small trees or bushes, then bosquecillo (literally "little forest") would be more accurate. I would only recommend the latter for describing, not naming. Arboleda is a much more appropriate word for naming a place (like Angel Grove, for example:) Kreachure (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.165.21 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, arboleda is much more general, being a collective noun for árbol. It could mean just a group of trees, or imply a greater number of plants. Alameda essentially means arboleda de álamos. Collective nouns for other species exist, such as pinar, rosedal, etc.

If you want a specific noun for a small group of trees (in line with the restricted meaning of grove), then you could use soto or monte. Well, also bosquecillo, as Kreature noted above. Pallida Mors 22:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thirst quench in spanish[edit]

how would you say thirst quencher in spanish or thirst quench or just quench? is it tempano de sed?

Hi again!! There is no direct translation of 'quencher' into spanish as far as I know (by the way, tempano de sed means "thirst iceberg"!>.<) BUT there are translations for the verb 'to quench': calmar or saciar are the most common. So, 'quenching thirst' would be: calmar la sed (literally "calming your thirst", but it's a common way to say it!) or saciar la sed. And in case you're wondering, bottles of Gatorade (and the like) don't translate 'thirst quencher', they leave it in English. Kreachure (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Kreachure, this is a difficult translation. In my country [Argentina], Gatorade spots often remark something like "aplasta la sed" (it crushes/squashes thirst), but it is of course not the only probable translation. Pallida Mors 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

honeydew in spanish[edit]

how would you say honeydew in spanish, the fruit. i have had a lot of troube with this one, melon referes to both cantelope and honeydew in spanish and both fruits are the same species and share the same scientific name, so i was thinking melon verde which is what my grandmother always called it, i was thinking maybe it could be casaba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.165.21 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Honeydew (melon) links to the Spanish article Melón verde, so that is probably the most common Spanish name for that variety of melon. Marco polo (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the only problem is that, i myslef wrote that article, "melon verde". so there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.135.10 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Melón dulce is a better choice.Pallida Mors 23:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orchard in spanish[edit]

how would u say orchard in spanish, like a tree farm. the spanish wiki artile linked to says huerto, but thats vegetable garden. so im lost, maybe huerto bosquillo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.165.21 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, the words for orchard and garden are the same. Huerto would be the right word if you meant a very small orchard, but for a farm-scale orchard, huerta is better. To be specific that you mean a huerta of fruit trees, say huerta de árboles frutales. There is a Spanish word meaning "apple orchard", by the way: (el) pomar. Marco polo (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]