Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 January 29

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 29

Between / among

Failing to distinguish the words "between" and "among" is a common error. Correcting this one has me stumped, however. From the Navajo Nation article:

...traditional homeland of the Navajo people, situated in the area between the mountains...[four mountains listed]

I can't seem to find the proper wording in order to remove "between", since it refers to more than two things. The context requires a description of a general area, and "bounded by" would be too specific. "Among" might be correct, but sounds odd. ~Suggestions? ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave it alone. There are distinctions to be made between "between" and "among", of course, but the idea that you may not use "between" if there are more than two objects is a piece of fatuous nonsense invented by some smartarse in the 18th Century. The OED's entry for "between", says "In all senses, between has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two." --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Among also carries the possible connotation of a plurality of objects bounded by the outer objects. Amidst would be better than among here, but between is fine since it obviously means between the north and south and between the east and west, or the like. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Okay, thanks. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a further note. Between is also properly used when speaking of more than two things if the things are to be understood pairwise: "Plant rows of marigolds between (not among) the rows of tomatoes." Deor (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the main reason why "among" wouldn't have worked here, as the original poster rightly felt, is that "among" implies that the entity whose position is being described is of the same or a similar kind as the objects that are used as reference points. You might describe a tribe as settling "among" other tribes, or a mountain as being the highest "among" other mountains, but you wouldn't describe an "area" as being "among" mountains. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would, and I think many others would too. I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you're suggesting. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a phrase such as "hidden valleys among the mountains" sounds perfectly natural to me, and Longfellow wrote: "Like those waters rushing Among the wooden piers", but there always seems to be an implication of distribution. Dbfirs 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just use betwixt and be done with it.:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting translation from Italian to English

Hello.

Could someone please translate this poem (poesie d'amore) by Alfonso Gatto from Italian to English? Thanks in advance.186.31.40.94 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate has done this job:

The big nights summer 's nothing that moves beyond the clear filter kisses your face a dream in my hands.

Far as your eyes you're coming from the sea by the wind that seems' s soul.

And kisses passionately until the 'dry mouth as the night unfolded is taken away from her breath.

Then you live, you live the dream ch 'exist is true. How t 'I looked.

I hold you to tell you that the dreams are as beautiful as your face as far away as your eyes.

And the kiss I want is the 'soul.

75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And that demonstrates why people come here, and ask for translations from actual humans, rather than relying on Google Translate. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right on that point. However, in this case, the original is roughly equally comprehensible. --Trovatore (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My best quick effort:

The great nights of summer

In which nothing moves but the light (or clear?) filter (or philtre?) of kisses

Your face a dream in my hands

Distant like your eyes

You have come from the sea

From the wind that seems the soul

And you kiss desperately

Until your arid mouth

Like the night is disclosed

Carried away by its breath

You live then, you live

The dream that you exist is true

For as long as I have sought you

I squeeze you to tell you that dreams

are as beautiful as your face

as distant as your eyes

And the kiss I seek is the soul

Better? --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is kinda better isn't it? Funny how I didn't notice until I translated it. --Trovatore (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rechtsfähigkeit/権利能力

This is a question about different legal systems. What is the difference between the concept of Rechtsfähigkeit/権利能力 and legal personality and legal capacity? The Japanese and German Wikipedias have articles on those two concepts that are separate from these foreign terms (which are connected between the languages). Is there an article on the English Wikipedia that is roughly equivalent? Reinana kyuu (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not know if some of the other help desks would be more able to answer this question, but going by the german article about Rechtsfähigkeit, it is definitely a generic term incorporating both english concepts you linked to above. But as legal systems tend to have walked off in different directions, I am not sure that there is a possibility of even a rough equivalent. I can say nothin about the Japanese article, though. I think that legal capacity is already as close as you can get, but "capacity to act" should come close too or "enjoyment of civil rights" Lectonar (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for trying to help. I'm asking because the concept is referred to in an article on the Japanese Wikipedia about dōjin circles that I am in the process of trying to translate. In the organization section, it leads off (as I understand it) by mentioning that although dōjin circles have some protection under freedom of association, legally they are generally considered to be private organizations, with "private organization" then linking to a page entitled what translates roughly as "Groups without 権利能力". For the time being, I have that sentence translated as, "Freedom of association is protected in Japan, and thus dōjin circles have some legal protection. However, they generally are considered to be private associations devoid of legal personality under Japanese law." However, I'm trying to get a handle on what exactly this concept is and what differentiates it from the terms we already have in existence. Evidently, something must, since they have separate pages for those. I suppose I could try the humanities desk and see if they can help out. Reinana kyuu (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here are the German pages on legal personality and legal capacity, and here is the Japanese article on legal personality (They don't have a distinct one on legal capacity). Reinana kyuu (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

interbreeding vs. outbreeding

What are the differences between these two terms (if any)? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of emphasis. Interbreeding covers any hybridisation between two populations, while outbreeding is when fresh blood is intentionally introduced to an existing lineage. Rojomoke (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is contemporary then, now or either?

Contemporary writers, such as the member of theInner Temple writing in 1816 (from reprint by Warren 1977) or the Cambridge Chronicle of May 1816 (from transcribed extracts 1981), blame the rioters themselves. Modern writers, such as Peacock (1965), Gerrard (2003) and Goulden (2008)[,] do not establish a direct cause ...

— Senra, 13:28, 12 January 2013

Does the above paragraph use contemporary correctly? This question is not important as the paragraph might not be used in the article --Senra (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly correct, and (in this instance) also unambiguous, since the contrasting of "contemporary" with "modern" makes the intended meaning clear. But the word is often also used in the other sense; it's all a matter of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary really means "sharing the same time period". In historical writing, it almost always means "during the time period just referenced". The meaning "present-day" usually occurs only in ahistorical texts or texts clearly focused on the present. Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A source of confusion, though, is that some people use "modern" to mean "everything from the 17th century up to now"; in that context, you really need another word to describe more recent modernity, and "contemporary" often fills that niche. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a similar problem in the rare book community (and possibly other antique-type things too, but I'm not qualified to speak there) where "contemporary" means "produced at the same time", so an incunabulum with "contemporary binding" or "contemporary ms. notes" means that the binding and/or manuscript notes date from around the same time as the production of the book itself. eldamorie (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Words with supposed antonyms but are actually synonyms?

One good example is the word "valuable" and its supposed antonym is "invaluable" but it actually means the same thing as "valuable". How many words in the English language that are actually like this? With words like this, how can a person find a true antonym for a word? How are these words developed? Another word, I think, is "priceless". From the surface, it looks synonymous with the word costless or free, the opposite of costly. Free is synonymous with cheap, but cheap costs little money or resources while free costs no resources. It can therefore be interpreted as free as in "completely worthless" or free as in "so valuable that is beyond numerical value". 140.254.227.122 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's also "flammable" and "inflammable" - the latter causes so much confusion to non-native speakers (and some native speakers) that it has effectively been banned from use on warning signs and labels in some countries. See Flammability#Linguistics: flammable vs. inflammable. Roger (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Then there are words like cleave that mean their own opposite (pull apart, stick together). I've never been sure which meaning applies to "cleavage". Or for that matter to the promise to "cleave only unto him". --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, cleave is a really interesting verb because there were originally two (or possibly three) different verbs that got confused, and they are both over a thousand years old. The past participles cloven and cleft can be used only for the cleave that comes from Old English "cléofan" meaning to split (and cleavage is also from that meaning, of course, but I like the doubt cast by Trovatore!)

The other sense, written "cleeve" in Middle English, from OE "clífan", should have past "cleeved" but the words got confused hundreds of years ago, so it is now spelt cleave, with past "cleaved" (or sometimes "clave" -- blame the King James bible for that), and means to stick or cling (almost the opposite). The present and past tenses of the two have become thoroughly confused. Dbfirs 22:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

He watches her cleave (hew asunder) the sparkling green crystal; one-half rolling into the wicker cleave (basket) balancing on her lap. Her ample cleavage (cleft) quivering inside her satin blouse damply cleaving (clinging) to her silky pink skin --Senra (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the story about a baker who invented a breadknife that could slice four breads at one - it was a four-loaf cleaver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

These days, "free" is often used in ways it was never intended. You've got to spend money on some purchase in order to get the "absolutely free" giveaways. How much of a contradiction in terms is that! "Free" never meant "at no additional cost", it meant "at no cost at all, and without any conditions at all". I have no real idea of what the antonym of this creative sense of "free" would be. Logically, "unfree" would be something you get without having to commit to some other, larger purchase - but that exactly matches my idea of "free". What a cockup the marketers have made of our language. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but the "absolutely free" giveaway that you have to spend money to get is often described as a "free gift". --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

While I know exactly what you mean and are looking for, valuable and invaluable are not great examples – they're not synonyms. Valuable means having considerable value, while invaluable means having such great value it's impossible to measure. Here's a pair: You would think having a fat chance would be the opposite of having a slim chance, but they mean about the same thing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point about valuable/invaluable. Subtle difference. Even more so with 'fat chance' vs 'slim chance' -- the former is used ironically/sarcastically and thus has added nuance, i think. Also there is a significant difference between 'free' and 'cheap,' not sure how the OP is conflating those two. And i've never thought of 'free' as 'completely worthless.' El duderino ^(abides) 09:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I was confused by that aspect too. I don't think of 'free' as ever meaning either 'cheap' or 'worthless'. 'Costless' looks like it might be a calque of a word in some Germanic language; I'd have picked 'priceless' and 'worthless' as the words to contrast in this context. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hot" and "cool", when applied to people, don't mean exactly the same thing, but they tend to be applied to the same people - although it is certainly possible to be cool without being hot, and hot without being cool. But "hot" and "cool" are still a lot closer in meaning than "warm" is to "cold". Also, "hot" and "cold" are not antonyms, and "warm" and "cool" are not antonyms; but, confusingly, "cool" and "cold" are close to antonyms, as are "warm" and "cold". It's perfectly possible to be hot and warm, or hot and cool, or hot and cold, or warm and cool. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I get any points for "sucks" vs. "blows", in the context of "X is really bad" -- e.g., PTC sucks vs PTC blows? DaHorsesMouth, not logged in ... 184.100.91.151 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"slow up", "slow down". 86.176.210.160 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pissed on and pissed off are synonyms; at least it is usually likely that if you are pissed on, you will be simultaneously pissed off. --Jayron32 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

driveway / parkway as in the classic question, "Why do we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?" [1] though personally I've never used the word 'parkway' for a freeway or highway, I suspose it's a regional difference. El duderino ^(abides) 11:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Different meanings of "park". A parkway is a highway or roadway that has been sufficiently decorated with pretty trees and landscaping; at least that was the initial definition. And of course, you do drive on a driveway; your car is certainly not airlifted into and out of its place on the driveway. --Jayron32 18:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a discussion specifically about the term "parkway", some months ago here. Odder than those two terms is the Britishism "car park", which we Americans call a "parking lot". When I hear "car park", I get a mental picture of a nice grassy area with randomly placed cars painted in bright colors and with flowers growing out of them from all sides. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think "arguable" and "unarguable" (and "arguably" and "unarguably") are synonymous. Is that true? --Theurgist (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. They're antonyms. "Arguable" means that you think the matter is up for debate, and (often) that you disagree with someone else's certainty, even if you're sympathetic to their point. "Unarguable" means that the point is unassailable; there is slight ambiguity as to whether you mean the point being made or (more rarely) its opposite, but it does not mean that it's an open question. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But as Alex says, disagreeing with someone else's certainty is often -- but not always -- the meaning of "arguable". If I say "That's unarguably the best example of all" it means certainly. If I say "That's arguably the best example of all" it means a good case can be made for it. So here they're not antonyms; both are positive comments about the assertion. But they're not synonyms either, since one leaves no doubt and the other leaves doubt. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Pitted prune" = prune without a pit (the pit having been removed). Since "four-legged animal" means an animal with four legs, I think "pitted prune" should mean prune with a pit. For that matter, "pit" itself seems to be its own antonym: after you take the pit (rock-like core) out of a prune, what's left is a pit (empty space).

If we impose sanctions on a country, that shows that we don't sanction what it's doing. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You pit a prune or cherry or olive by removing the pit; you core an apple by removing the core; you shell a peanut by removing the edible part. The word "pit" is a convergence of two different words, as with "cleave":[2] I still like the old Wiley's Dictionary definition of "rock": To cause someone or something to swing or sway... by hitting them with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But you don't crumb fish by removing the crumbs; you add crumbs to it. About peanuts, you actually remove the shells and eat the edible part (well, I do). Unless you're using "remove" in the sense of "separate". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The next time someone asks if it's possible to recreate a modern language from its roots, we should just direct them to this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Stage Language

I am trying to remember the name of a slang language which was used amongst especially 1960s stage actors and comedians in England. I seem to remember it was based on Yiddish, and may begin with a P. My googling has come up with nothing. Many thanks for your help BbBrock (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Polari. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's it :) BbBrock (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Register and French/Germanic word origins

So, it's pretty widely known that in English, where you have a pair of common more-or-less synonyms, one from Old French and one from the Germanic languages, the French word is of a higher register or has better connotations (grand vs. gross, pork vs. swine, kingly vs. royal). But there's one pair at least that doesn't fit the pattern - pigeon vs. dove. Although there is no difference between a pigeon and a dove, the Germanic word "dove" is poetic and romantic, while "pigeon" tends to denote vermin (no-one would say "This town has a dove problem" or "We're releasing pigeons at our wedding"). Why did pigeon/dove buck this trend, and are there any other (common) words that fit this pattern? Smurrayinchester 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, grand and gross are both derived from French, and I don't really see your point about kingly vs. royal, which has better connotations you think? Anyway it's quite subjective anyway and I'm sure other counter-examples can be found. Languages just don't 'listen' to such kinds of rules, they're living things. - Lindert (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a form of the infamous woody vs. tinny divide.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's often argued that the names of meats are French in origin, and the animals they come from Germanic. But the pattern is unreliable:

• • Pig (Old English? earlier etymology uncertain) / Swine (Germanic) / Sow (Germanic, but cognate with Latin sus) > Pork (French)
  • Cow (Germanic) / Bull (Germanic) / Ox (Germanic) / Steer (Germanic) > Beef (French)
  • Calf (Germanic) > Veal (French)
  • Chicken (Germanic) / Pullet (French) > Chicken (Germanic)
  • Sheep (Germanic) / Ewe (Germanic, but cognate with Latin ovis) / Lamb (Germanic) > Mutton (French, but not Romance - apparently Gaulish) / Lamb (Germanic)
  • Goat (Germanic) > Chevon (French, but obsolete - most English-speakers with the need to refer to goat-meat call it 'goat')

There appears to be no distinct English word for horse-meat (as recently brought to the public's attention in the UK and Ireland as an undisclosed ingredient in beefburgers). The most obvious exception to the assumed rule is chicken, but lamb is far more commonly used than mutton these days. I think the more general rule to which the OP refers, and of which this is a special case, may be too loose to be a reliable rule at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lamb/mutton is supposed to be like the difference between veal/beef. It isn't simply that mutton the word isn't much used but that leg of mutton isn't much sold. Rmhermen (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How could we omit deer/venison? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

English words of French and Latin origin generally are seen as more 'prestigious'. This owes much to the Norman takeover of England, when Norman French became the speech of the elite and thus was seen as the 'prestige language'. That's the main reason why so many French words came into English. If you look at my Romanic→Germanic wordlist you'll find that the Romanic (French and Latin) words are generally the ones that are seen as more 'formal' or 'high-register'. For example 'begin' (Germanic) and 'commence' (Romanic); 'enough' (Germanic) and 'sufficient' (Romanic); 'odd' (Germanic) and 'abnormal' (Romanic); 'end' (Germanic) and 'terminate' (Romanic). I could give you more but I'd be here all day! An interesting example are our words relating to sex and bodily functions. Here, the Romanic words are seen as politer, while the Germanic equivalents have become swear words. Compare 'anus' (Romanic) and 'arse/ass' (Germanic); 'excrement' (Romanic) and 'shit' (Germanic); 'penis' (Romanic) and 'cock' (Germanic); or 'testicle' (Romanic) and 'bollock' (Germanic). However, as you say, there are some exceptions. ~Asarlaí 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The comparisons of words for naughty bits are not quite fair, because the polite Latin words are themselves euphemisms for plainer Latin words, most of which have naughty Romance descendants: testis (literally 'witness') for colleus, anus ('ring') for culus, vagina ('sheath') for cunnus, penis ('tail') for mentula among others, excrementum ('something separated') for merda. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)