Language desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 24[edit]

Etymology of 'extemporise'[edit]

Any one know the etymology of the the word 'extemporise' (meaning to improvise)?--ProperFraction (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from extemporaneous, which is from Latin "ex tempore", according to M-W. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why would 'out of time' mean to improvise?--ProperFraction (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In classical Latin, ex tempore ("[arising] out of the time") was used to mean "on the spur of the moment." Deor (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good! OK, now, why "spur of the moment"? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also translate it as "out of the occasion." Does that make it clearer? Deor (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! But I was wondering now about "spur of the moment" -- it's an interesting usage -- I wonder if it's a Shakespeare invention? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood you. Apparently not; the earliest citation of "on the spur of the moment" in the OED is from 1801. I assume it's somehow related to the preceding phrase recorded there: "on the spur," meaning "with the utmost haste" (clearly derived from spurring a horse), which dates back to the 16th century. Deor (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Arising at the time and not preplanned. I see! Thanks--ProperFraction (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looking for the word for[edit]

someone who is (or, the act of being) opportunistic at someone else's misfortune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.206.220 (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A profiteer (see also war profiteering) or, depending on context, maybe a speciesist word like vulture, leech, shark, or magpie will fit? ---Sluzzelin talk 04:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An "exploiter", or, in slang, perhaps "a user". StuRat (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you used the best word in your question: "opportunist". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought as well, but in fact "opportunist" just means taking advantage of a situation (e.g. "an opportunist goal"). It doesn't have that connotation of exploiting someone else's misfortune. There is the wonderful German word Schadenfreude, meaning taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune, but that doesn't have the connotation of taking advantage. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. An "opportunist" always takes advantage of opportunities, but this may, or may not, be at the expense of others. StuRat (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "manipulator" has unscrupulous aims, usually. See manipulation. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thematic priorities[edit]

what is meant by 'thematic priorities'? or what are 'thematic priorities'? please clarify. thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.251.227 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it means which themes are most important, in, say, a book. I'd have to see the context to be more specific. StuRat (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asya[edit]

<moved from the humanities desk for translation and answers Julia Rossi (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)>[reply]
Saan nagmula ang pangalan ng Asya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.80 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nagmumula ang pangalang Asya sa salitang Asia ng Espanyol, na may etimolohiya sa salitang Asia (Ασία), isang panauhan sa mitolohiyang Griyego, anak ni Oceanos (Ωκεανός; Oceanus) at Tethys (Τηθύς), mangingibig ni Iapetos (Ιαπετός), isang Titano, nanay ni Prometheus (Προμηθεύς), Epimethus (Επιμηθεύς), Atlas (Άτλας) at Menoitios (Μενοίτιος). Sana naisagot ko nang wasto ang tanong mo. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Translation: The name Asya came from the Spanish Asia, derived from the Greek Asia (Ασία), a character from Greek mythology, daughter of Oceanos (Ωκεανός; Oceanus) and Tethys (Τηθύς), lover of Iapetos (Ιαπετός), a Titan, and mother of Prometheus (Προμηθεύς), Epimethus (Επιμηθεύς), Atlas (Άτλας) and Menoitios (Μενοίτιος). I hope I have answered your question succinctly.)

Time was[edit]

Time was when I could remember the names of my friends, for example. This is an accepted idiom, yet its construction seems very unorthodox. Where did it come from, and how did it become part of the rich tapestry of English? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this is relevant, but one old (c. 1555) usage appears in How Fryer Bacon made a Brasen head to speake, by the which hee would have walled England about with Brasse, a chapter in The Famous Historie of Fryer Bacon, by anonymous, on which Robert Greene's play Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay is based.

The songs by angry, ignorant Miles shift in response to the magical speaking brazen head's spoken words "Time is" (>> "Time is for some to plant / Time is for some to sowe;...") to "Time was" (>> "Time was when thou a Kettle / wert fill'd with better matter:...") and finally "Time is past" (after which the head collapses, and the friars will see their entire labour lost, because Miles neglected to wake them in time, while time still was, but had not yet been). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest references given in the OED are "the tyme hath ben, nat longe before our dayes" (Alexander Barclay, 1509) and "the tyme was, when it was nedefull" (Myles Coverdale, 1549). --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's from Latin "tempus erat"? Sometimes archaic-sounding English is directly translated from Latin (although to me, this seems more usual for the nineteenth century than the sixteenth). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's not the sort of language you'd find in normal conversation, in my experience. I tend to associate it with avuncular old-timers, who by definition have "old times" to remember and talk about (or forget), and sometimes use quaint forms of expression (quaint to their younger listeners, that is). It still surprises me that it's become cemented in; I'd expect "The time was when ..." or "A time was when ..." would have had better chances. Maybe it was "the time was" at some stage, and it's become abbreviated to "time was" through colloquial use. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to be ambitious without being pretentious?[edit]

Being ambitious involves striving for something above the current level of achievement of you and your peers. Your non-ambitious peers may see this as pretension. Is there any way around this, before the event? (After the event you will either have succeeded, in which case you will have a new elevated status; or failed in which case your pretentiousness will bwe confirmed.) Thanks. 80.2.202.175 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being ambitious is striving to be more successful in the future, while being pretentious is pretending to be more successful currently than you really are. It certainly is possible to be the former and not the later. Also, you may want to maintian a different persona for your friends versus coworkers. The most obvious example of this was a black coworker of mine who spoke excellent English at work, but when I heard him on the phone with his friends he was talking ghetto slang. I imagine he also wore different clothes and acted differently with them, too. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago while I was a student, a lecturer said he thought some artwork I had been commissioned to do by an art gallery was pretentious. So was he misusing the word pretentious? I had already achieved the doing of the work, I was not pretending to be more succesful than I was. 80.2.201.59 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of art it has a slightly different meaning. Perhaps he meant you were trying to emulate the style of one of the masters when you clearly hadn't yet mastered the basics. However, art is so subjective that I wouldn't pay much attention to critics in that field. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although his English at work is not necessarily a sign of ambition, he may be speaking differently to "fit in" or to have you guys understand what he's saying. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster: When you say you're looking for a "way around this", are you looking for a semantic way around it? So are you asking for a definition of "pretentious" that would make it incompatible with ambition? Or are you asking for a way to make your friends realise that your "claim to importance" is justified? I would assume the latter if this question was on the Misc desk but here, I'm not so sure. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering if it is possible to be ambitious without risking being accused of pretentiousness. Both words have the common theme of striving, so I'm wondering if there are any circumstances where you do not get both together. 80.2.201.59 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the art world. "Pretentious" in that context is a subjective insult unless the person using the word can explain what they mean by it. You were right not to take it personally/seriously – since the gallery was happy, that is an evaluation in itself. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat says above, the word has a different meaning in the context of art. However, I don't much care for Stu's example definition either. It may mean that the art is attempting to express a degree of profundity which it doesn't actually possess. Julia is spot on, however; you shouldn't worry about it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think any art work could be accussed of being pretentious, until it has been around for a while. I think the lecturer may have been jealous about me getting commissioned by an art gallery even while a student. Jeaousy seems to be rife in the art world, with little or no professionalism. 80.0.97.107 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are finding out, wise one, jealousy, insecurity, and lack of ability is rife and so abitrary pecking orders, put-downs, and other undermining unqualified slings and arrows are meant to put you off your game. Don't give them the advantage, gallery-on, 80.0.97... Julia Rossi (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, although you forgot to include the manipulation, backstabbing, harassment, and dog in the manger which I found even at college, where I would have previously expected the staff to be above that. 80.2.199.66 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this isn't too late, but I was talking about the staff! not to mention the cannibalism and plagiarism they incite in their students! Are we maybe talking about the same college? though I think it's pandemic really. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoi vs. que and other French grammar questions...[edit]

Okay, I know this is the English 'pedia, but I don't really speak enough French to ask on the French one, so I'm hoping there's a Francophone or two out there who can help me with this ...

I studied French all throughout high school (about 10 years ago) and briefly in college. One thing that has always confused me (and still does) is the difference between "quoi" and "que". Recently, I happened to find the lyrics to the French version of "The Nightmare Before Christmas". The song "What's this?" became "Que vois-je?" ("What do I see?"). Why is this que vois-je and not quoi vois-je? That whole sentence is an inversion of "je vois quoi" ("I see what" -> "What see I"), right? So how come "quoi" became "que"?

On that same note, I vividly remember being told in my high school French classes that you're never supposed to invert the first person when asking questions. So, if you wanted to ask where you were, you would say, "Ou est-ce que je suis", but never "ou suis-je". Now, I get that this is a song in a musical and doesn't necessarily have to be grammatical perfect, but is that really a rule, and why? Do French speakers really consider it strange-sounding or otherwise improper to invert "je"?

Sorry for the non-English-related question, but I really haven't found a source to answer these questions. Thanks for your help. Dgcopter (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoi" is a subject and "que" is an object. It is "que vois-je" because "que" is the object of "vois". I don't think you can say "je vois quoi", can you? Maybe if it introduces an indirect question, assuming "quoi" and "que" work just like their Latin roots "quid" and "quod". For the second question, I remember learning that too, it just sounds weird to invert "je", just like it sounds weird to invert most questions in English (we don't say "what see I?" either, it's "what do I see?", except it extends to all the pronouns for us). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How quoi became que? I dont know and there is no answer in my French grammar. The usual form is que as an object or an attribute: Que chantes-tu ? However quoi is used when it is not the first word of the sentence (without inversion): Il t'a dit quoi ? Que or quoi are used when the verb is at the infinitive mood. Que faire ? or Quoi faire ? The latter, Quoi faire ? seems to be more colloquial. There is not a unique rule… French is not easy and its grammar not easy to explain AldoSyrt (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this analogy make sense? que:quoi :: me:moi :: te:toi —Tamfang (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense from an historical point of view. The latin word quid evolves to a stressed form quoi and an unstressed form que. Same evolution to a stressed form moi and to an unstressed form me. But if we take a look at the present usage, there remains no analogy. The pronoun me, object complement, is directly jointed (linked) to the verb: Il me voit. (voir me) The pronoun moi is separate from the verb: C'est moi qu'il a vu. (voir que and que = moi). My reference: Maurice Grevisse - Le bon usage - Grammaire française, 12e ed., Duculot 1988. – AldoSyrt (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Où suis-je?" (note the accent on the u) sounds OK to me, actually. The French would pronounce the last two sounds together, so that it sounds something like "sweej". And by the way, there's absolutely no need to apologise. This desk is for queries on all languages, not just English. It's just the posts themselves that need to be in English. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little bit more complex. Inverting the first person when asking question is correct (however it is polished style) in general. You should not invert when the verb, at the present tense, does not end with the letter e. We do not say Meurs-je ? but Est-ce que je meurs ? There are exceptions, we say Puis-je or Est-ce que je peux. There are other forbidden inversions with the verb être and the subject ce, third person and simple past tense, etc. AldoSyrt (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off to the left, but what grammatical form is "puis" in "puis-je?" I thought it was the subjunctive, but that would be "puisse"...72.219.143.150 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pouvoir, first person (indicative mood) present: je peux or je puis. This latter belongs to literary language. Puis-je ? is less literary but is polished style. Pouvoir, first person, subjunctive mood, present: que je puisse. AldoSyrt (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I get it. Merci!72.219.143.150 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-06-24 C > WIKIPEDIA = A NEW BWORD IN THE BLOGOSPHERE??[edit]

Our pretty nice website/blog: <point made, promotional link removed as per wiki policy> has just been listed as a link on another terrific blog:<promotional link removed>. In thanking our host for this kind inclusion it occurred to me that I was expressing my appreciation for a "BLINK" or Web-Link. I checked Wiki's wonderful resource info on the word "BLOG" and its various permutations but did not find "BLINK." Consequently, I'm thinking that this usage may constitute a major contribution to the lives of all of my fellow ether bunnies. Am I correct that in this useage "Blink" is an original word and that I may have coined a new cyber term? Keep up the great work. CrashCrashf8s (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blink is already an existing word. In the context of digital media, the word 'link' is fairly unambiguous, so there isn't really any void to fill with a new expression. While 'link' accurately defines what you refer to as a Web-Link, 'log' on the other hand does not do the same for a blog. Thus, the word blog added something new and useful, while your 'blink' doesn't. Thus, it isn't likely to catch on, IMO. On the other hand 'fugly' seems to be established in some groups, so who knows, words that mean the same thing with a gratuitous letter at the beginning may have a future after all./Kriko (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word link is already an abbreviation for hyperlink, and you will find no link on the web that is not a "web link". --141.161.98.54 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite true! Examples: irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia, news://alt.fan.warlord, mailto:greyknightisawesome@example.org. The World Wide Web and the Internet are not the same thing. However, "blog links" don't seem to be distinguishable in anyway I can see. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that some of those links—at least the news: one—are still part of the World Wide Web, despite not using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The World Wide Web, as originally conceived, brought together both the existing protocols and the new HTTP and HTML technologies. Here's an old presentation by Tim Berners-Lee stating explicitly that the World Wide Web "envelops" the other protocols. See also this WWW FAQ. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, what would timbl know about it? ;-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No point in asking him now, he's off slaying dragons and such... although I guess you might run into him now and then... -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eat your "vége"[edit]

What does "vége" mean in English ? I think it's Italian. It appeared at the end of a Powerpoint Slide Show sent to me via e-mail, with "Time to Say Goodbye", sung by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the hungarian for end? See here: [1]. Fribbler (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but that link doesn't work. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that. Well, it's just this page with vége punched into the Hungarian-English dictionary. Fribbler (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that looks like it. Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Italian for "eat your vegetable".Coffsneeze (not Coff N. Sneeze) (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language differences between British and American English[edit]

my question is:

In terms of a hotel, what does Full Board and Half Board mean? We don't use those terms in America. At least I have never heard them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.231.202 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full board means all meals are included (breakfast, lunch and evening meal). Half board means breakfast and one other meal is included. The next step down is "Bed and Breakfast" (breakfast only) and if no meals are included it's "Self-Catering".Fribbler (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "self-catering" implies that there are facilities for guests to prepare their own meals. I'd say the next step down from B&B is "room only". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info.98.194.231.202 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]