Language desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4[edit]

Translation[edit]

Can someone help me translate the snippet of text here? Thanks. I think it might be German.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page or just the part about Edith Marie Pomare. Thanks. I am not sure what language this is though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is, I think: "...successor of King George I Tubou, who died on March 17, 1893; 1st marriage in Nukualofa, on December 8, 1898, to Edith Marie Pomare Ouahine from Tahiti, maiden name Eimeo, born February 3, 1882, date of death unknown". It's in French. The second one is in Czech. "Many also talked about a Tahitian princess named Edith Marie Pomare Vahine. But, to a great surprise of all islanders, king George II married a 19-year-old Lavenia, daughter of his chief of police Kuba.--Itinerant1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German snippet is here. It says (like the French) that princess Edith Marie Pomare Wahine was born on Eimeo. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but the second wife is described by the first snippet as "Lavenia psse de Tonga, nee a Koubou", which, according to the second (Czech) snippet, means "daughter of a man named Kuba". This English text [1] also says "Lavinia, Kubu's daughter". This would indicate that "Marie Pomare, nee a Eineo" means, as "nee" does normally mean, "Marie Pomare, daughter of Eimeo". --Itinerant1 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, all English online sources agree that she was born on Eimeo. And the book does uses "nee a XXX" to mean "born in XXX" in other places. I was mistaken.--Itinerant1 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text "Édith Marie Pomare Ouahine psse de Tahiti, née à Eimeo" is in French. The word "psse" is short for "princesse". In English: "Edith Marie Pomare Ouahine princess of Tahiti, born on Eimeo". — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Itinerant1: Could you enlighten us about the letter Ziu? User:Странник27/Sandbox. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Go to [2] and copy/paste "зю" in the search box. (It should get you here.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation help[edit]

ご利用の端末では
視聴サービスを利用いただくことはできません。

Hello, I'm getting the above message when trying to view a video stream from a website. I believe the second line means "you are unable to receive this video service". I'm hoping the first line explains the reason, but I can't figure out what it's saying. Google Translate is completely useless as usual. Can anyone help? 86.160.212.9 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know Japanese, but, as far as I can tell, the first line just says "using this device ..." --Itinerant1 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Itinerant1 is right. It's " By/with the terminal unit you are using". Oda Mari (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, thanks. I hoped it would be something more specific! 86.160.210.251 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese 'r'[edit]

How do you say the Japanese 'r'? --207.160.233.153 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Wikipedia:IPA for Japanese page here on Wikipedia.Van Gulik (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I was told to pronounce it (for native English speakers) is to put your tongue in the position for "l", and then try to make the sound of "r". In practice, I have heard all sorts of pronunciations from native speakers in study materials, from what sounds to me like English "l", to "r", to "d", and all points in between. 86.160.210.251 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As-clauses in English[edit]

The article Mule Deer states:

"The Mule Deer does not show marked size variation across its range, as does the White-tailed Deer."

Am I right that the sentence wants to imply that White-tailed Deer does have marked size variation across its range, while it literally means that White-tailed Deer does not have marked size variation; and, that it should be worded "... as the White-tailed Deer does" to express its true meaning? --KnightMove (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is very ambiguous and confusing. If the White-tailed Deer does show marked size variation, I suggest "Unlike the White-tailed Deer, the Mule Deer..." Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small-c vs. capital C[edit]

Sometimes we use expressions such as "He is a reactionary with a capital R", to mean he is an arch-reactionary, an extreme reactionary. You get the idea.

We also use the descriptor "small-<letter>" to distinguish people from those belonging to formal groups with that word in the title, which would be capitalised. Such as "He is a small-c conservative", meaning he is conservative by nature, and not necessarily a member of some Conservative Party. The difference is clear in writing, but "He is a conservative" and "He is a Conservative" sound exactly the same in speaking, so the disambiguatory descriptor "small-c" has to be added if we want it to mean the former but not the latter.

So, how do we use these expressions when we want to say that someone is extremely conservative ("conservative with a capital C") but NOT a member of the Conservative Party? Is it OK to mix them and say "He is a small-c conservative with a capital C"? Or would that just confuse people? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each is a rhetoric fluorish, to some extent, so to use both sounds odd indeed, unless you were going to some deliberate point (can't quite think what; maybe "too conservative to be Conservative" or something). It's so inherently avoidable; it feels like a mixed metaphor. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a contra-suggestive rebel with a capital C-S R, I am always attracted to things that are inherently avoidable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure I'd really agree with the premise. "He's a small-l liberal" means he's liberally minded, but doesn't necessarily support the Liberal Party, which would generally be quite the opposite, but would be the first thing most people would think you meant if you just said "He's a liberal". Writing it with a capital L doesn't mean he's strongly liberal though; the capital indicates a proper noun, e.g., naming the Liberal Party, you'd need to add the "He's very liberal" to mean he's strongly liberal. In speech adding in the "small-l" term is just a shorthand way to distinguish, but it's not necessarily needed in writing as the capital for the proper noun often suffices. "He's Catholic in his views" or "He's catholic in his views" mean quite different things. Additionally in speech it's easy to clarify if your listener clearly misunderstands, but not so much in writing. In speech you'd just add the usual qualifiers if you wanted to add impact: "He's very conservative", or if it wasn't clear enough "He's doesn't support the Conservative Party, but is very conservative in his opinions". If you say "He is a reactionary with a capital R" the "with a capital ..." is just intended to add emphasis to how reactionary he is, not intended that you would literally spell it with a capital; in writing you may put it in bold or something to add a similar emphasis. --jjron (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know of Australia's Liberal Party, which I admit is not all that much, I don't really agree that it's "quite the opposite". Don't they support free markets, individual liberties, protections for the accused, that sort of thing? That's what I consider "liberalism" in the proper sense of the word, as opposed to the big-government sense that developed in the United States in the 20th Century. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the relatively recent Prime Ministership of John Howard the Liberal Party in Australia became very conservative. It was definitely the more conservative of the two major parties. It sought the votes of those inclined to be racists on immigration and boat people issues. It supported US policy unquestioningly on issues like the Iraq invasion, including keeping Australians in Guantanamo without trial. To this Australian, it didn't appear very liberal at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I grant you that those things don't seem liberal, but part of my point is that liberal and conservative are not in fact antonyms nor even necessarily in tension. If you live in a liberal state, it is conservative to be liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is, the people to whom the word "liberal" was applied in the U.S. in the 20th century actually were liberal in the classical sense of the word (supporting free markets, individual liberties, protections for the accused, etc.) and were not particularly pro–big government at all, as their opponents tried to trick the voters into believing. Angr (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, gonna hafta disagree with you there. The only consistent liberals, in the older sense, in the latter have of C20 America, were called "libertarians". --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why, for example, people so badly misunderstood Barry Goldwater; they were surprised when he started taking "liberal" positions around the 1990s. But Goldwater was always a liberal, one of the strongest ones on the American political scene. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point - he was labeled "liberal" because that's what he was, just like Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and the rest. None of them were socialists or even remotely left-wing (and the Democratic Party has drifted to the right since their day) and they certainly weren't in favor of government infringement of personal liberties - that's what the so-called "conservatives" who complained about "big government" were for. Angr (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's more ironic that the supposedly "small government conservatives" are actually more obsessed with trying to control individual social liberties, including investing in a disproportionately larger armed forces to carry it out. The only thing "small" in their vision is smaller government intrusion into matters that involve money.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They also tend to believe in smaller federal government say in matters they want handled by state and municipal government, e.g. States' rights, because local governments have historically been much more tolerant of the tyranny of the majority than the federal government has. Angr (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) But people were surprised that he was liberal. They shouldn't have been surprised. His free-market policies in 1964 were liberal too, although called "conservative", which they also were, because they wanted to conserve the existing liberal structure. On the other hand Mondale's views on the economy were not particularly liberal, but rather state-interventionist. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People were only surprised because they had successfully been trained to believe the word "liberal" means something different than it does. Angr (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jjron, but what premise is it that you're disagreeing with? I wasn't saying anything other than that there are people who are not members of any Conservative Party (or maybe have no political involvement of any kind) but are nevertheless very conservative in their outlook; so much so that we might say of one, "he is a conservative with a capital C". Being a non-member of the Conservative Party also makes him a "small-c conservative". Can we reasonably or usefully combine these into "he's a small-c conservative with a capital C"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that while one could attempt to do so, the attempt would be so fraught with awkwardness as to lack both reason and utility. As a writer, I'd say you would lose whatever casual charm the use of such informal idioms can convey, and risk confusion and misunderstanding. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That confirms what I was getting at with my question "Or would that just confuse people?" (witness the above exchange). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the confusion is that "conservative" can be both noun and adjective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of the point of my question. These 2 types of expression (X with a capital <letter>; small/capital-<letter> X) are only confusable where X can be both an adjective and a noun. I could say "He's an idiot with a capital I", but I couldn't say "He's a small-i idiot", because there are no capital-I Idiots to distinguish them from, as there's no such thing as an association, club, league or party for idiots. Or if there is, where do I get an application form? :) A capital-C Conservative is not the same thing as someone who's conservative with a capital-C. A member of the Conservative Party need not be conservative, personally; and vice-versa. A particular person could quite easily be a member of both groups, but I was talking of the ones who belong to the latter group but not the former. Now I'm confused ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you were young[edit]

something dreadful happened to you. You will really have to concentrate to recall it. What is this sort of "prediction" called? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not catching your drift, Kitty. What's the context? How can something that happened in the past be predicted, scare quotes or no? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense of course; the same as ghosts. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of engram, or perhaps a similar concept from more conventional psychological disciplines such as Abreaction or Recovered memory therapy? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.46 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Repressed memory?--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to false memory. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confabulation? Also False memory syndrome, similar to the "show me on the dolly where the bad man touched you" line of questioning. It was often the cause for public hysteria on UFOs, conspiracy theories, sexual abuse, and satanic cults. In some cases resulting in people getting jailed for crimes they obviously did not commit. The most controversial and fantastically unbelievable of which is the McMartin preschool trial.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you make vague suggestions, something is going to satisfy the requirements of those suggestions, but it is the ratio of vagueness to specificity that matters here. "Something dreadful happened to you" sounds specific because "something dreadful" can be expected to be unforgettable. "You will really have to concentrate to recall it" sends us scurrying off looking for a different sort of memory. The incompatibility of the requirements that we have been provided with tempts us to apply interpretive reasoning. To complicate matters further, we may be sorting through faded memories. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a "prediction" that would be true if applied to most people is a form of cold reading used by flim-flammers everywhere.... - Nunh-huh 01:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a "suggestion"? You are being "influenced" by a "suggestion". It is one example of the power of suggestion. Something will fit the bill if you search hard enough. When one "concentrates", one considers options one would have rejected in a more cursory glance. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]