Language desk
< August 11	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 13 >

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.

August 12[edit]

Arabic Verbs[edit]

Does anyone know a way to differentiate between the different groups of trilateral verbs described in this website? http://vegasociety.com/arabic/present.html --Elatanatari (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiate them how? It only seems to be the basic first pattern, if that's what you mean. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the verbs that have dammas, kasra, or fatahs between the 3rd and 4th consonants.Is there a way to tell from the root or does one just have to 'know'?--Elatanatari (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no I think that's kind of random for verbs of the first pattern. It's usually damma, though. You just have to learn it for each verb. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks, lol.Elatanatari (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One -> He[edit]

Is it proper grammar to switch pronouns in this manner when writing? For example — One can do the things he had always wanted to do, but had never had the time. For some reason, I believed it is, but on review I'm thinking it isn't. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of moving your "unrelated question" down into a separate item. --Anonymous, 04:16 UTC, August 12, 2008.

Q.1. Prescriptively: "one" does not take another pronoun, so once you've started with "one", you've got to stick with "one" ("One is proud to say that one learned to read before one turned 4"). Descriptively: most people who don't know the rule would probably not use this word in any case because it's often associated with a kind of "upper-class" way of speaking. But those who do use it generally adhere to the rule, but they choose their moment carefully. So, people would generally either know the rule and follow it, but use it sparingly; or not know the rule and not use the expression at all. There must be exceptions to this, but I can't think of a good real-life example where "one" is followed by another pronoun. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one depends on what country you're in. In Britain the rule is as Jack says, but people in the US who use the pronoun "one" at all commonly do switch to another pronoun rather than repeating it. Traditionally the other pronoun is "he", but these days people who object to "he" in gender-neutral contexts will substitute some alternative such as "he or she" or perhaps a "singular they". --Anonymous, 04:23 UTC, August 12, 2008.

JackofOz is right pronoun should remain constant. You have started with the non-gender one you need to stick with the non-gender form not switch to the masculine he (some argue that the pronoun here should be their but the use of the plural as singular non-gender isn't probably going to be settled anytime soon). A person might also see the use of one as a pronoun in student papers (at least if the student has a picky English teacher and cares about a good grade). Since formal writing should not contain 1st or 2nd person, one can be used as a substitute for you ("If one imagines..."). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release from future liability[edit]

As an unrelated question, is there a word meaning 'to release from any future liability', and especially protect from a lawsuit? I was thinking about "indemnify", but that has several meanings and one of them is somewhat related, but not as much as I previously though it did. Thanks! seresin ( ¡? ) 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity is the closest I can come up with. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (Never mind, I misread your question, but had my coffee now. I can't think of a verb meaning "to release from any future liability". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Pardon, as in "Nixon was pardoned by President Gerald Ford in 1974" may be suitable. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you may not get any closer than "indemnify" to the meaning you want. Indemnify has a fairly broad meaning of releasing or protecting from liability. For example, "director indemnification" is about protecting the directors of a corporation from being personally liable for things that might go wrong as a consequence of their decisions. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Indemnify" is not the verb you want. It means more "to make someone whole, after that person has had to pay something." Dictionary definitions for "indemnify" include (1) in the sense of insuring against loss "to provide somebody with protection, especially financial protection, against possible loss, damage, or liability," and (2) in the sense of reimburse after loss "to pay compensation to somebody for loss, damage, or liability incurred." The verb that more closely fits what you want to say is "exculpate," meaning "to free somebody from blame." One sees the terms "exculpatory agreement," "waiver of liability agreement," and "release of liability agreement" used interchangeably (although, some lawyers/writers make a distinction between "waivers" and "releases," reserving the term "release agreement" to those agreements entered into after an accident or injury has occurred). One problem with the word "exculpate," however, is it is rather an obscure term. As such, a party who wants to have an enforceable exculpatory agreement, may not want to label it an "EXCULPATORY AGREEMENT," as that may give an argument to the injured person seeking to void the agreement, that the person did not know or understand what the person was signing. Another problem with the term "exculpate," is the term is used in two somewhat-unrelated contexts; it is used in the civil law context (see above), and also in the criminal law context (i.e., to free someone from an accusation of criminal guilt, as in "the DNA test provided exculpatory evidence"). For more information on exculpatory agreements, see my two articles on that topic published in the Wisconsin Lawyer, available online at: <http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=50167&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm>, and <://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Wisconsin_Lawyer&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=36105#7>. I hope this helps.Sandiependleton (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Recently I was having a conversation with a friend in which they were discussing the notion that a person thinks that they are inherently proficient at a certain task or skill without any previous attempts or formal training. Specifically, my friend assumed that they would be great a javelin throwing to the point in which they would be the best in the world.

I said that there was a specific term used to describe this notion of inherent superiority, but I could not think of the word.

Does anybody know?

Cholycross (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~A prodigy, perhaps? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Megalomania ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, the notion of inherent superiority. Megalomania sounds about right. That, or hubris. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Innate" ability conveys the idea of something a person is born with. (It is a bit of a stretch to imagine an innate ability to throw a javelin but I suppose someone might be born with the "right" genetics" to develop skill in javelin throwing.) Wanderer57 (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When considering something you've never done before, there are at least 2 attitudes you could have: (A) I assume I'd be crap at it, so I wouldn't even bother trying; (B) Until proven otherwise, I assume that with training and practice I'd be good at it, maybe even very good, maybe even .... This is Olympic season, and kids all over the world are being encouraged to dream BIG dreams, and to imagine themselves one day up there on the winner's podium - "If she can do it, so can you, Brianette" etc. Without such a dream, success almost certainly won't occur. If little kids should have big dreams, why not adults? This reminds me of Jascha Heifetz - the violin was his thing, only the violin (he played piano quite proficiently, but he never touted himself as a pianist). He was once asked if he could play the trumpet, and rather than replying "No, of course not", he said "I don't know, I've never tried". Keeping an open mind about one's own abilities is a very positive thing to do; thinking that you'd be the best in the world before you've had any training ... hmm, maybe a bit premature, but not necessarily unrealistic in the long run. I wonder if Muhammad Ali always thought he was the greatest even before he had his first boxing lesson, or whether he developed his thinking only after he started, and found he had great natural ability. Sorry, I've meandered a little; I guess my attitude is to encourage my friends' dreams rather than to label them. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original poster's point was that his friend intimated that he would be the best javelin thrower in the world pretty much from the get-go, without a training regime and whatnot. That's certainly the impression I got. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Walter Mitty, or fantasist out of touch with reality on the one hand, on the other, at Braggart there's a nice list for boasting. Your friend then puts you in the pozzie of not being able to prove or disprove it. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I did hear of a man who won something like long jump for Australia at the Olympics sometime, and claimed his only training was to stop smokiing a month before. Don't know his name if it's true, anyone? (oops forgot tosign)_ Julia Rossi (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found him: Long jumper Jai Taurima - the man who proved you could smoke, eat pizza, drink bourbon and still win an Olympic medal[1], it was silver. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "A natural" ? Or perhaps "A bighead" ? Astronaut (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puts me in mind of the story (which I thought was a Just So Story) about the donkey who wants to roar like a lion and fly like an eagle... 217.42.157.143 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ist, IInd, IIIrd?[edit]

Do Roman numerals take suffixes [?] like -st, -nd, -rd (as in 1st, 2nd, 3rd)? 59.91.254.9 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in ordinary usage; suffixes are supplied by context. We talk about the XVIII ("eighteenth") century, the XXIX ("twenty-ninth") Olympiad, Henry V ("the fifth"). Although in French, "Louis XIV" is read as "Louis Quatorze," literally "Louis Fourteen." — OtherDave (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, French uses the suffix "-e" (for "-ème"). See French Roman Numerals and fr:XXe siècle.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for "XXIX Olympiad", the second result (of 360,000) is The official website of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad. From my Google search for "XXIXth Olympiad", the first result (of 4,240) is China shoots to beat America at XXIXth Olympiad in Beijing - Olympics - Yahoo! Sports.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for "Ist IInd IIIrd", the first five results (of 130,000) are in or regarding India.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my (English) Wikipedia search for "Ist IInd IIIrd", I found 11 (eleven) results, including "International Astronomical Union".

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colon usage[edit]

Hi,
In the following sentence is the colon used correctly? "Therefore, regardless of Sarah’s true reason for raising her hand, she could not have committed assault since Ben suffered no psychological distress: the crux of assault." The additional text after the colon is meant to indicate that psychological distress is the crux of assault. Many thanks, --Fir0002 13:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One use of the colon is to expand or explain a statement. That might apply here, though to me the sentence is lengthy and unclear (this is description, not criticism). if the key point is that assault requires psychological distress (I have no idea), this might work better:

Although Sarah did strike Ben, the effect lacked the crux of assault: psychological distress.

— OtherDave (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with OtherDave. Thats how I would write it: it seems much clearer. I use a colon (amongst some other things) in place of the abbr. i.e. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.184.142 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, and yes I do agree it's much clearer but the first part of the sentence (reason for raising hand) is essential to the sentence (when in context with the rest of the piece). --Fir0002 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation please[edit]

Hi all, I found this on a piece of paper on the ground... jus primae noctis... translation? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.155.86 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law of the first night. See Droit de seigneur. Fribbler (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un-freaking-real! WP has an article on (almost) everything! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.155.86 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a semi-related rant, don't you hate it in Braveheart when everyone lazily says "prima nocta"? That's not even a word! At least Patrick McGoohan had the sense to enunciate "prima nocte" which is the phrase in the ablative for some reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Hi! I wanted to know opinions about the language in the article I had edited. I'm not an Englisman and I wanted to know my competence in language. I've put article for peer review but nobody answered. Tell me please if it is possible to do a thing I want or not?--Slav9ln (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which is the article? Thuresson (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by this user's contributions, the article in question is Sergei Bodrov, Jr..—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First thing I noticed that the article alternate between refering to its subject as "S. Bodrov" and "Sergey". I would have used "Bodrov" throughout. Is that a Russian versus English difference? Due we have a style policy on these usages? The "S. Bodrov" seems unusual. Rmhermen (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd. In an equivalent Russian context, Russian writers would normally choose from "S. S. Bodrov", "Sergei Sergeyevich", or "Bodrov" - but not "S. Bodrov". And particularly not in this case, where the subject's father was also an S. Bodrov. I'd be changing them all to either "Bodrov" or "Sergei Bodrov", and use "Sergei Bodrov Jr" only where necessary to disambiguate him from his father. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is Sergei Bodrov, Jr.. I've changed all places like "S. Bodrov".--Slav9ln (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian translation[edit]

Hi, I'm writing about Czechoslovak history and I would appreciate if somebody could translate the Russian words in this post stamp? Thanks in advance. Thuresson (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ПОЧТА СССР: USSR Postal Service

5к: 5 kopeks

Перестройка — продолжение дела Октября: Perestroika is the continuation of the October initiatives

Ускорение, демократизация, гласность: Acceleration, democratization, glasnost

Hope it helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thuresson (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or vs. nor[edit]

This question came up in a current FAC. Should one use or or nor in the following sentence? "No damages or/nor fatalities were reported." Plasticup ^T/C 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's or in your case. However, how about change things around and say "Neither damages nor fatalities were reported". Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to The American Heritage Book of Usage. They argue for "nor" in specific situations like these:

As a balance to "neither" -- "Coolidge was neither willing to run nor to serve." (This is Omahapubliclibrary's format.)
In the second of two negative independent clauses -- "The explosion did not cause property damage, nor was anyone injured."

— OtherDave (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sentence doesn't have a neither nor does it have two independent clauses, so I guess I am going with or. Plasticup ^T/C 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]