Language desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

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.

December 17[edit]

Verb from Ptolemy's name?[edit]

At the www.fourthturning.com board a few years ago, I saw a poster mention the "Ptolmecization" of the Strauss-Howe generational theory. Someone inevitably asked what that word meant, and another poster explained, respelling the word as "Ptolemaicization" or something alone those lines, that the word meant adding more and more complex elements to an explanation, in violation of Occam's Razor, in trying to save a theory. (One example listed was the increasingly convoluted tweaks to the Ptolemaic model of the universe as time went on to try to account for all astronomical discoveries despite the Kepler model.)

I have searched Google for "ptolmecize", "ptolemaicize", "ptolemicize" and many other variations, but cannot find a word that gets more than a few ghits. I have come up empty-handed looking at the English index of P-words at Wiktionary. So what is the word that they were using at the Fourth Turning site? Enzingiyi (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a nonce-word someone made up on the spur of the moment; it might as well have been Ptolemnicization or Ptolemnification as Ptolemaicization. A word only enters dictionaries if it's widely used. In the context mentioned, the better part of valor would be to define the word when first used, or use more common words: overcomplication, rationalization, special pleading, etc. - Nunh-huh 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Productivity (linguistics). This use of '-ize' (in coining new verbs with a meaning of "to render something like [that to which the stem refers]") is productive, especially in academic discourse. So if they are using "Ptolemaic" to refer to those theories which use increasingly tenuous ad hoc explanations, including, in particular, Ptolemaic models of the solar system which use epicycles, then "to ptolemaicize" would be to make or augment theories with such explanations. The word doesn't have to be common, because it is just being produced on (hopefully) mutually-understood grammatical principles. And the variations could all be used, but those most etymologically inclined would probably go for "ptolemaicize"/"-ise". That's probably the second- or third-to-most-common production in academic discourse, next to the -ian/ean/-an and -ic. Keep reading philosophical articles on meaning or logic, and you will eventually see "Kripkean", but you won't see the word in a dictionary, at least not any time soon. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ptolemize" would make more sense, wouldn't it? (I get 7 Google results for that, anwyay.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To ptolemize would be to make Ptolem. The adjective Ptolemaic already exists (the actual name is Ptolemaios, root Ptolemai-, which yields Ptolemai-ikos, hence Ptolemaic), and as mentioned above, adding ize to ic, and then ation to icize are productive rules. The word Ptolemaicize is entirely parsable, whereas the other suggestions are based on a misanalysis of the roots or just plain impressionistic goofing around.

If you really do want to get goofy, there is always the ironic -ma- infix, such as in edumacation. That would yield Ptolemaimacize. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on which Ptolemy you were talking about, "Ptolemize" could also mean "to marry one's own sister". ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you Thagomize, you can certainly Ptolemize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you can thangomize, unless you accept a back formated verb based on the use of that back formation. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian 1st person pl. imperative[edit]

Is it true that Romanian never uses first‐person plural imperatives of verbs? Why would its sister languages have it and Romanian not so? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would they say "Let us pray"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP already looked there, but Romanian verbs#Verb paradigm just gives a blank in that spot in the table. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian has been substantially influenced by the nearby Slavic languages, although I don't know to what extent that's true for its grammar. For comparison, I found this passage in Bulgarian language#Tense:

There is only one simple tense in the imperative mood – the present – and there are simple forms only for the second person using the suffixes -и/-й (-i, -y/i) for singular and -ете/-йте (-ete, -yte) for plural; e.g., уча /utʃa/ ('to study'): учи /utʃi/, sg., учете /utʃete/, pl.; играя /iɡraja/ 'to play': играй /iɡraj/, играйте /iɡrajte/. There are compound imperative forms for all persons and numbers in the present compound imperative (да играе, da iɡrae/), the present perfect compound imperative (да е играл, /da e iɡral/) and the rarely used present pluperfect compound imperative (да е бил играл, /da e bil iɡral/).

So maybe (I'm guessing) Romanian got this feature from the Slavic languages. And maybe, like Bulgarian, Romanian has a compound imperative in the first person plural? Duoduoduo (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Jack's question, Romanian seems to use a present subjunctive form to express the meaning of a 1st-p plural imperative. In effect they say "That we should pray". To answer the original question, Duoduo is quite correct that Romanian has had a lot of Slavic influence. There is a theory that in the early middle ages, there was widespread Slavic bilingualism among the ancestors of the Romanians. Another theory is that Romanian belongs to a Balkan sprachbund along with the South Slavic languages. Marco polo (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be thankful for that answer. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latin didn't have formal 1st. person imperatives; the commonly-used imperative forms were 2nd. person only, while the semi-obscure forms with "-to" suffixes could be 2nd. or 3rd... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, 1st person imperatives in western Romance languages (French and Spanish, anyway, not as familiar with the others) are identical to the corresponding present subjunctive forms, just as Romanian uses a present subjunctive to communicate the same sense. The difference may just be one of labeling. These forms are called imperative in French and Spanish but not in Romanian even though they are formed in the same way. Marco polo (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to this wikibooks page, which says about French The imperative is used in tu, nous and vous forms; the nous and vous forms are the same as the indicative in both regular and irregular verbs (except the 3 [sic] irregulars shown below) .... Être, Avoir, Savoir, & Vouloir are the only verbs that are irregular in the imperative. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In at least Être and Avoir, the 1st. plural imperative is the same as the 1st. plural subjunctive (soyons, ayons), but in most other verbs, the 1st. plural imperative is more like the indicative than the subjunctive (i.e. does not use the "-ions" ending)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the original question: That's right, Romanian only has second-person imperatives. For "let's play" you can use the subjunctive, usually amplified with a particle: hai să jucăm. In fact, the subjunctive is commonly used instead of the imperative even for the second person. --Theurgist (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Heraldry[edit]

un escudo verde y dentro de él un cordero plateado encima de un libro colorado e atravesado por una bandera con una cruz e su veleta como la trae la devysa de Sanct Joan e por orla castillos e leones e banderas e cruzes de Iherusalen e por devysa una F. e una Y. con sus coronas e yugos e flechas e un letrero a la redonda de la manera siguiente: Joannes est nomen ejus".

This is a 1511 description of the Coat of Arms of Puerto Rico (possibly the illustration in the article might help to understand the meaning). I understand most of it, but my Spanish is not good enough to provide a consistent translation, and I have no idea what the words atravesado and manera mean in a heraldic context and how to understand "con [...] su veleta como la trae la devysa de Sanct Joan". --Oudeísde Correct me! 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translated loosely: A green shield; inside, a silver ~~sheep~~ lamb upon a book, proper, and crossed (obliquely) with a flagstaff topped by a cross, with a pennon like that in St. John's arms; a border of castles, lions, flags, and Jerusalem crosses; with a device of an F and a Y surmounted by crowns, yokes, and arrows; a surrounding motto with the following legend: Joannes est nomen ejus. -- What I find confusing is that in Spanish art the pennon with a cross is characteristic of St. James, not St. John. "Veleta" also means "weather vane", so perhaps that refers to the device at the top of the staff, and the cross of the "bandera" is the red cross on the pennon. (See, for example, this suggestive painting of John by Titian, showing him with a staff topped by a cross: File:TitianStJohn.jpg [1].) The Y and F (and yokes and arrows) are badges of the Catholic Monarchs, Ysabela and Fernando. The yoke (yugo) goes with Ysabela and the arrows (flechas) with Fernando, so File:Coat of Arms of Puerto Rico.svg [2] has them backwards. Elphion (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the connection between St John, the lamb and the flag, see Lamb of God (or if you're thirsty, try Lamb and Flag). Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico was originally named for Saint John the Baptist and he is its patron saint, so that would be the saint, not St. John, the Evangelist, whose traditional symbol is the eagle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]