Language desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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 20[edit]

Fireplace accessory[edit]

People often have a holder next to their home fireplace which holds spare logs and such. What are these called? Is there a specific term for them or is it just "log holder"? Dismas|^(talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, "log holder" is it. That's what we call them at home. Bielle (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a log basket in which case it's called a log basket. These are far more common in the UK than "holders".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roma (or Romani) for Gypsy[edit]

I'm editing a historical museum exhibition text on Nazi concentration and extermination camps. The displays have English-language captions for museum visitors who include native- and non-native speakers, upper-primary school-age on up (basically anyone who can't read the Hebrew or Arabic captions). The newly written text makes several mentions of Gypsies [sic, the period term] in the Chelmno and Auschwitz camps. My query: how well-known is "Roma" as a stand-alone term for this people in general, i.e. as a substitute for the earlier term "Gypsy"? What matters is what's best understood now and in the future, not which term is more "correct." The curator prefers a single term without a gloss in parentheses. Looking at Web evidence of usage is inconclusive, except that "Romani" seems less commonly used (and I'm disinclined to choose that because I suspect it might be mistaken for "Romanian"). My overall impression is that "Gypsy" is unacceptable usage for an educational institution. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed most people belonging to those peoples find the term gypsy offensive. I seem to recall big discussions when a memorial for the victims of the 3rd Reich was to be put up. But back then some of the representatives even contested the use of Sinti and Roma, because it was too exclusive for them. Here is a news article in German on the topic. The term Zigeuner equals the term gypsy there. Personally Id think that Sinti and Roma is more appropriate since that is the given name to both of the major "Gypsy peoples". As a non-native speaker, I might be unable to judge the frequency of usage of those terms though I find them perfectly understandable.--91.6.28.130 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)I realize that "Roma" is problematic (as shown on the dab page) for having two meanings: either the all-inclusive for Romani people or for the one major group that doesn't include the Sinti. However, I can't use the combined "Roma and Sinti" without knowing whether both, or either, were interned in Chelmno and Auschwitz. (The researcher's original text, in Hebrew, doesn't make that distinction.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term "Gypsy" could have a broader meaning than intended. That is, rather than referring just to the ethnic group in question, the term is often applied to anyone who moves from town to town without a permanent residence. Another concern is that using modern terms for historic periods seems like an anachronism. For example, I cringe when I hear people talk about the period when "African-Americans were slaves". On balance, though, I'd go with the term "Roma". StuRat (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, it's highly unlikely that anyone visiting an exhibition on Nazi extermination camps would think the tinkers of the British Isles were included among ethnic "Gypsies." As for anachronism in terminology, this isn't like being "born in Zimbabwe in 1954." Nor are these terms neologisms coined for a new millenium, but adoption of the people's own terms rather than others'. (Think "Inuit" for "Eskimos"). The difficulty is whether the museum's present terminology, while being academically reputable, will be understood by visitors coming with whatever level of education and background they have and without recourse to look-up technology on site. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must have been other wandering people in the areas conquered by the Nazis besides the Sinti & Roma ? I would also expect that many of them would have been targeted for extermination. Did the Nazis lump them all together as "gypsies" ? The question, then, is how to distinguish the groups. And terms made up by a group (or on behalf of a group), recently, can be some of the worst examples of PC run amuck, like "specially-abled", so that doesn't make the term inherently better. What did these people call themselves, collectively, at the time of the genocide ? That might be the best choice. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Sinti and Roma being interned at Auschwitz: A quick search with google scholar gives enough book titles to auggest that there is at least historical discussion on that matter. (Both SInti and Roma being deported and killed there that is) I suggest getting one of those books through a library service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.6.28.130 (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the curator doesn't want it glossed but comprehension is an issue, why not just gloss it on the first instance it appears? i.e., "The Roma (formerly known as Gypsies)..." just once, and then "Roma" for the rest of it? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(post-EC):In a published running text I'd do so, but not here. Ideally each text stands alone. Even if visitors progress along a linear route starting at the hall's entrance, they may not read any or all texts from start to finish. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Gypsy is unacceptable, because it is offensive to many of the people the term is supposed to identify, and a Holocaust museum certainly should not revictimize Holocaust victims. I think that Roma is a term that most well-educated native English speakers recognize, but I would guess that a majority of native English speakers would not recognize the term, mainly because Roma people are not part of the social landscape in most native English-speaking regions. Therefore, I agree with Rjanag that, if your goal is maximum comprehension, you really should include a parenthetical gloss at least once at the beginning of the section. My preference would be (sometimes called Gypsies) or (sometimes incorrectly called Gypsies) since the usage continues. As for Sinti I know this term mainly from German-language texts, where the formulation Roma und Sinti is common. I think that the term Sinti is really quite obscure in English, and unless Sinti people clearly object to being called Roma, I would use just the term Roma as a generalization. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roma is well understood in London - quite a lot of them live here. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "sometimes incorrectly called Gypsies" – the term Gypsy isn't incorrect, it's just dated and can be offensive. (But it is not necessarily offensive: Ian Hancock himself uses it in some of his publications.) My gut feeling is "Romani" is more likely to be understood than "Roma" (which for me is first and foremost the Latin and Italian name for Rome, and then a town in Texas), though I sympathize that it might be misinterpreted as "Romanian". +An gr 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP's update: A search of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website shows online-accessible articles having repeat usage of _Roma (Gypsies)_. As time is limited, I'll try phoning the USHMM to see whether their museum exhibitions follow suit. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a Roma Wikipedian or a Romani-speaking Wikipedian can help. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of answering the question, I'm afraid that the term "gypsy" is very deeply entrenched, at least in North America. Saying "Roma" would likely confuse most speakers into thinking it had something to do with Italy (not joking). Offensive, inaccurate, outdated... but understood. Matt Deres (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the second most familiar designation to English speakers would be 'Romany' (rather than 'Romani') - that spelling is dated now, but I don't know that anybody finds it offensive. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Matt that most North Americans will not correctly interpret Roma without some explanation. This is why I think you must have a parenthetical at least in the first instance unless you want to 1) create a misunderstand or 2) cause offense by simply using Gypsy. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "must" conclusion does not follow. There are other ways to mitigate the ambiguity. One way, promoted by the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma, is, as they do in their own name, the denomination "Sinti and Roma". Unfortunately, that is problematic, too, because it implies a priority of Sinti over Roma, and disagrees with the understanding of many that Sinti are Roma. Each solution probably has some problems attached. Therefore, it probably can't be too wrong to go with the parenthesis. If the USHMM had had huge problems with that, we'd probably find that with a Google search for "USHMM Roma criticism", which I didn't. Moreover, I wouldn't be too afraid of criticism; it can be the beginning of a great dialog. Maybe you could even write something about such language problems, and invite people to talk about that at an event during the exhibition? — Sebastian 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of an interesting way to meet all of your aims without using a parenthetical expression. That would be to start with a display and/or text titled something like "Who are the Roma?" In the text you could discuss all of the issues surrounding naming this people. That would turn this labeling dilemma into an educational opportunity, and it would make parenthetical expressions unnecessary elsewhere in the exhibition. Marco polo (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ColinFine - most English-speaking people — in the UK at least, though I suspect many elsewhere including the US — would know the word "Romany" and understand it to mean "gypsy". AFAIK it is not considered insulting in the same way that gypsy is. But Marco polo's solution is excellent, and would turn a potential problem into useful information. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Marco polo's solution is excellent, and I hope Deborahjay will read it. Besides the elegance of turning a problem into something positive, it also has the advantages that it works regardless of the term she chooses, and that it documents the background for the choice, which invites discussion rather than confrontation. — Sebastian 07:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP's response: I do read, consider, and value all the suggestions and concerns offered here. This exhibition on implementation of the "Final Solution" is tightly designed and content-heavy as is, so my concisely revising the term "Gypsy" is as much as I can achieve here and now. The topic of the Romani people has been proposed for our commemoration of the upcoming International Holocaust Remembrance Day, to which I'll contribute in content and spirit as we've discussed here. Heartfelt thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most English-language references that I've seen to what the Nazis did to the Roma call them Gypsies, and that really is the only term that most Americans would understand, with Romany coming rather far behind, and Roma close to nowhere. The correct term in Ireland today is "Travellers", which would be utterly bewildering in America. (See The Penguin Atlas of the Diasporas, 1995, by Chaliand & Rabeau, translated by A.M. Bessett, ISBN 0-140-17814-7; I think the same is true of the recent Third Reich at War, Hitler's Empire, and Lenin, Stalin, Hitler.) It's a difficult question where one wants to avoid offence, but (without wanting to start a huge off-topic sidetrack) very similar problems have come up with the names of the people whose ancestors were living in North America before 1492. See Talk:War of 1812#Indian Affairs. More generally still, the United States Census (at http://www.census.gov) uses up to half a dozen names for each major ethnic group, both when setting questionnaires and reporting results. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin to English translation software[edit]

I see Google Translator does not translate Latin to English, as it does with many other languages. Is there available somewhere free software that does Latin to English for a block of Latin text? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google "translate Latin to English" this site is suggested.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comes up with gibberish. Since I had De laude novae militae open I stuck the first sentence into it: "Hugoni , of a soldier Christi and instructor at the war Christi Bernardus Claraevallis solace by name father : good contest contest. A single time , and accordingly , and third , if not to deceive , inclining toward a me Hugo carissime , when to you tuisque commilitonibus scriberem exhortationis discussion , and facing hostile tyrannidem , because lances not unimpeded , a pike vibrarem , a stake you not too little forem assistance , if you wish whom by force of arms not to be able , letter breath." Computers suck at translating Latin, I wouldn't even bother trying. That's what the Language Desk is for! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the English to Latin is even worse. I asked it to translate a bit of that same block of text from (my own) English into Latin: "Ut Hugo , miles militis of Sarcalogos quod vinco of bellicus of Sarcalogos Bernard of Clairvaux , abbatis nomine tenus tantum : pugna bonus pugna. Quondam , bis , quod three vicis , nisi EGO sum frustra , vos have asked me , meus carus Hugh , scribo an exhortatory sermon vobis quod vestri socius miles militis". Awesome. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The program "Words" is quite good as a dictionary. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is (it is here - and it is not really an .exe), but it only does one word at a time, and you'll have to know at least a bit of Latin grammar to figure out what to do with the results. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Inscription[edit]

The Swedish House of Nobility has a latin inscription above the door.

Consilio atqve Sapientia, Claris Maiorvm Exemplis, Animis et Felicibvs (Armis, Arte, et Marti)

Our article only translates CLARIS MAIORUM EXEMPLIS = "after the clear example of the forefathers", I was wondering if anyone could provide a complete translation. Thanks, auto / decltype (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consilio atqve Sapientia = Counsel (i.e. sage advice) and wisdom

Claris Maiorvm Exemplis = you know already

Animis et Felicibvs (Armis, Arte, et Marti) = In good spirits? and happy (in arms, arts, and military affairs) --71.111.194.50 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I only have GCSE latin, but is there possibly an ambiguity regarding claris = clear (obvious) and claris = famous, distinguished? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably means "famous". These are all ablatives, so it would be something like "with counsel and wisdom, the famous examples of the forefathers, and happy souls (in arms, art, and warfare)". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is the concept of "happy souls ... in warfare", and equating that with "art", more than just a little bit creepy ? Of course, they aren't the first to think of warfare as "art", hence The Art of War. Still, enjoying killing people creeps me out. StuRat (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "ars" could be better translated as "skill" or "strategy" in this case. I don't think it's really creepy in context; Sweden used to have a large-ish empire, and the Romans were of course very militaristic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. The parenthesized part is actually written on a different wall, so it may not be directly connected to the "Animis et Felicibus" part. decltype (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]