Language desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 10 >

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 9[edit]

Is this wrong?[edit]

I'm using livemocha to learn Italian but they are giving the English translation of "he has a white beard" as "lui ha la barba bianca" but from my of knowledge of Italian so far and my knowledge of Spanish it seems to me that it should be "lui ha una barba bianca" instead. Can anyone confirm whether I or not I am right? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wrong: una usually goes with "due", "tre" etc. Because the guy cannot have 2 white beards, indicating whether he has "una" or "la" makes not difference in the meaning. I think "la" would be by far the prefered way. Una would be understood, but they might wonder why you specify the number of them, could he have "due"? some people might actually translate "lui ha una barba bianca" into "He has one white beard" --Lgriot (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly in French, 'il a la barbe blanche', if my memory serves me correctly. This happens with all facial features and body parts. As Lgriot states, it is not necessary to specify how many of a certain feature a person has, unless that person actually has an unusual number of them, such as the Cyclops of Greek Mythology, or you are only describing one of two of them. The definite article is usually used. After all, can you count the hairs on a person's head?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, you talk about "washing the face" rather than "washing your face". jnestorius^(talk) 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do? (in Italian I take it) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of the linguistic concept of inalienable possession. Steewi (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Letter[edit]

Can anyone translate this letter? It seems to be in Danish but I can't understand it. http://i38.tinypic.com/2010pvr.jpg

--68.4.124.72 (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a sailor writing home to his parents.Don't have time to translate it now.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody please translate Latin text?[edit]

Does this text [1], especially pages 286, 307 say Charlemagne was declared Roman dictator?--Dojarca (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does, specifically the first sentence of Note 13 on p. 286. According to the text, not only was made dictator, but also consul, tribune, and patrician.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate it?--Dojarca (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sentence says Then Carolus [Charlemagne] was named consul, tribune, universal dictator, and patrician by the emperor, pontiff, senate, and Roman people, by the given law. If you're looking for more than that for translation, let me know and I'll try, but the rest of Note 13 is slightly beyond my expertise.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could he be named dictator by emperor? By which emperor? Or he made dictator himself? And 'perpetuus' probably should mean 'permanent', not 'universal'?--Dojarca (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the history aspect, someone else will have to step in to give a good answer. I was reluctant to use "permanent" for the translation because it wasn't recommended by any of the four dictionaries I checked [2] [3] [4] [5]. "Lasting" or "continuous" might be better.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And what the page 307 says?--Dojarca (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dictator perpetuus" is often translated as "perpetual dictator" or simply "dictator for life". The rest of the note says: "The charter given by Charlemagne, the beginning and end of which I [the editor I guess?] attach here, is still preserved intact in Regensburg in the monastery of St. Emmeram. 'Charles by the grace of God king of the Franks and of the Lombards, and Patrician of Rome, grants [this charter] to the monastery of St. Emmeram, which is situated (as it is said) beyond the walls of our city of Regensburg. Granted on the 8th day before the Kalends of May [April 23] in Frankfurt in the 26th year of our reign [c. 793/94]. As for who is naming him all these things, probably Pope Hadrian I, whom Charlemagne saved from a Lombard invasion. This is probably all hyperbole; Rome wasn't much more than a pile of rubble, where the Pope, some petty nobles, and lots of peasants lived. That covers the pontiff, senate, and people; I suppose "imperator" should be understood in the Roman sense of "commander", not emperor, which probably also refers to the Pope. Charlemagne was not called emperor until 800, and it is certainly not the Byzantine emperor (actually empress at the time), who was very opposed to anyone being called emperor in the west. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please translate what is said on page 307?--Dojarca (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part? All of it, or note 31? It just says he held a meeting in Rome, "of which he was consul etc." Note also that this was all written by Johannes Aventinus in the 16th century, not by a contemporary chronicler. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton also says he was consul. Is there any contemporary evidence?--Dojarca (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Charlemagne does not run that deep, unfortunately! Maybe Einhard mentioned it? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton? What did he have to do with the history of Charlemagne? I know he wrote about pre-Christian era kingdoms. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient Roman politics, the word "dictator" referred to a military commander who was given extraordinary powers of limited duration in an an emergency... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Turkish Language and the Uyghur Language mutually intelligible?[edit]

Are the Turkish language of Turkey and the Uyghur language mutually intelligible? Can they understand at least 50% of each other spoken language? Sonic99 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know a Turk who said Turks can understand Uyghur, but to what extent he may have been bragging I don't know. Paul Davidson (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osmanli and Uzbek are close enough that people can come to understand each other fairly quickly, but I don't know about Uighur. kwami (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uighur is supposed to be mostly intelligible with Turkish, from what I've read, but in the way that I (in Australia) can understand a Scotsman in broad Scots. I know what's going on, but he'll have to repeat himself a bit. Steewi (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light-hearted side note: One of my favorite quotes from a Scandinavian tour book answers basically the same question about the Nordic languages as follows: Swedes and Norwegians can speak with each other, but when dealing with Danes they prefer to speak English.

Funny in my house since my wife is Danish! --Danh, 67.40.167.46 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]