Language desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 17[edit]

German question: The Future of Emily and other films[edit]

I approved The Future of Emily. Now, one source I added said: "Flügel und Fesseln ist ein Film, der zugleich sehr französisch und sehr deutsch wirkt." - So this means he said the film was "very French" and "very German" at the same time, right? (I used Google translate to check the meaning of the German strings from google books)

Also: This source:

Schlak, Stephan (editor). Alte Hüte: Entfremdung, Coolness, Untergrund (Zeitschrift für Ideengeschichte, ISSN 1863-8937). C.H.Beck, 2007. ISBN 3406559409, 9783406559402.

says: p. 49: "Die Parole der Surrealisten «Unter dem Pflaster ist der Strand» ist eine malerische Idee des Exotismus, die keinen Kontakt mit Freuds Erkenntnissen unterhält."

Does it mean that the "slogan" or "saying" of the film is not related to Freud's findings??

In addition, this source:

Möhrmann, Renate. Die Frau mit der Kamera. Hanser, 1980. ISBN 3446131604, 9783446131606.

says: p. 145 (if you do not see this string in the snippet preview, search for it in Google Books's search engine): "Diese Thematik greift erst der Film Unter dem Pflaster ist der Strand auf. Das hat sicherlich auch damit zu tun, daß Helma Sanders-Brahms vorher keine besonderen Kontakte zur Frauenbewegung gehabt hatte, sich eher die Programme der[...]"

So this means Sanders-Brahms had no previous contact with the feminist movement?

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this means that the film works as very French and as very German simultaneously. «Unter dem Pflaster ist der Strand» was the slogan of the German leftist movement in the 60s. Your source therefore speaks of the slogan rather of the film which uses it for its title and hences should not be used in this context. The last paragraph indeed says that HSB had no special contact with the women's movement before making the film. Sanders-Brahms herself if I recall correctly once said during a lengthy (English language) interview found on YouTube that she had little to do with politics before starting making films. By the way, The Future of Emily now appears under T in categories yet shouldn't it appear under F? 46.116.250.15 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC) You're welcome! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. I just fixed it, though the categories may take a while to catch up. Incidentally, Sanders-Brahms also directed a film called Unter dem Pflaster ist der Strand, known in English as Under the Pavement Lies the Strand (which I guess makes more sense than "Under the Band-aid is the Beach", which was my first thought). Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing F&F's alphabetical designation. Yup, "Pflaster" is also German for pavement, not just for band-aid :) I was referring to that particular film. This is the place to mention that Wikipedia also needs an article about Fassbinder's Gods of the Plague and prehaps I'll write one when I'll have the chance. If someone, however, wishes to do so before me, they are more than welcome! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK but if you want to start a new article on English Wikipedia you need a login name that's more than about three days old. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic al[edit]

I gather that the Arabic word/particle/clitic/what-have-you al is basically a definite article, is that correct? Could it have been acquired from Spanish el during the time of Moorish Spain? Or is it just a coincidence? If it's not a coincidence, are there other examples of such fundamental, structural words being acquired from a language in a totally different family? --Trovatore (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a coincidence. There aren't too many examples of function words that are loanwords, but there are a few; English they/them/their, for example, though they're borrowed from a fairly closely related language (Old Norse), not one in a totally different family. Japanese, Korean and/or Vietnamese may have some function words that are borrowed from Chinese, though I don't know any of them well enough (i.e. at all) to say for sure. It wouldn't surprise me though. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore -- The Arabic definite article is well-attested from before the Arabs got anywhere near Spain, and in fact the Arabic article has a number of significant structural differences from the Spanish article (such as not varying for number or gender, being attached to non-predicate adjectives which agree with a definite noun, etc. etc.). We have an article on Al- which does not make any mention of Romance origins (and in fact a few people have speculated on possible Arabic influence on Spanish, rather than the reverse...) AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last point seems to be impossible, as it's generally accepted that Spanish el and Italian il come from Latin illus/illa/illum. --Trovatore (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, some people have suspected that there was a kind of synergism whereby influence from Arabic ended up selectively reinforcing certain aspects of the Romance/Latin heritage over other aspects... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic article came from demonstrative pronoun la ل.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Lipinski Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar §33.10, where he traces ’al- to Common Semitic hn- > han- > ’al- with the change n>l.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Любослов Езыкин --= those two hypotheses can't both be true. AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose the most attractive to you. :)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the responses above, while a Spanish origin is not possible, the actual etymology of Arabic al in uncertain. I wonder if it's cognate with the Hebrew demonstrative particle elleh (אֵלֶּה, 'these'), also occuring as el (אֵל). - Lindert (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The derivation from "hn-" is the one I've met before, and it can also underlie the Hebrew article 'ha-' (+ gemination). Spanish el, la, los, las are from Latin illu(m), illa, illos, illas, so while an influence from Arabic is conceivable, it is not likely. --ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Spanish el is derived from Latin illu. However, in surrounding Romance languages (except for Catalan, which was similarly exposed to an Arabic superstrate), the initial vowel was dropped, producing an article beginning with "l" or reduced as in Portuguese to the final vowel. Were it not for the influence of an Arabic superstrate, it is plausible that the Spanish masculine definite article would have been lo. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting; I suppose that's plausible. I think I had at some point heard the idea that Spanish el came from Arabic, which struck me as obvious nonsense, but the possibility that what the influence of Arabic did was weight the choice between el and lo, that could be, I guess.

Doesn't mean I'm convinced, though. I note that Italian chose il over lo (except before certain consonant sounds), but that Sicilian uses lu, and one would expect far more Arabic influence on Sicilian than on Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A random example: Turkish has borrowed from Arabic excessively, and the common Turkish conjunction ve, meaning "and", derives from the Arabic conjunction و (wa), with the same meaning. --Theurgist (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basque eta ("and") looks similar to Latin et, but I don't think that the etymology of eta is certain. --Error (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The و as a conjunction is also there in Persian and Urdu, according to Wiktionary. Other examples exist as well. --Theurgist (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

got vs won / in vs. at[edit]

Are these sentences grammatically wrong?

1. His older sister got the first prize.
2. She was in the park.

For me they are perfectly good sentences but someone I know is claiming that they are not. It should be "His older sister won the first prize." and "She was at the park." Please enlighten me. Many thanks. 203.228.255.210 (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are perfectly good. There is nothing wrong with their grammar. Got the prize is informal, and I wouldn't use it in formal writing. In the park is possibly more precise than at the park (I might use at the park even if she was standing outside the gates) but in practice there's very little difference. --ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All four sentences—your sentences and the sentences of the person correcting you—are acceptable. The only thing that is a little odd is "at the park". When a person is doing something on the park grounds, we normally say that they are "in the park", at least in American English. There are situations where you might say "She was at the park" instead. The only one I can think of at the moment is a situation where a person is traveling (on foot or in a vehicle) through a city and was at the moment being described passing by or temporarily stopping in front of the park. Then you might say "She was on her way downtown. When he caught up with her, she was at the park." However, the usual expression would be "in the park". Marco polo (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, "at the park" is more common than "in the park" when referring to visiting a park recreationally, and follows the same construction as "at the beach", which would almost certainly also be common in the US.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Hadn't thought of US/UK differences. In British English, like Australian, "at the park" is normal for "visiting the park". --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not so sure I agree with Marco, actually. I think "at the park" would be my first choice (in AmE). "In the park" seems overly, well, geometric or something. --Trovatore (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally say "won first prize" (or "got first prize" is also OK), without the "the". --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "got" is rather informal, almost slang. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Got" is informal, but I think it is standard English and not slang. I would say that the definite article is optional after won. "...Won first prize" is certainly the most elegant way to express this idea, but neither "...won the first prize" nor "...got the first prize" is incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"She got the first prize" could be taken to mean prizes were being found or received and she got a prize before anyone else. "Won the first prize" could be taken the same way, but implies she met the requirements to win before anyone else. Say a class teacher decides the class did so well that everyone would get a piece of candy as a prize. If the teacher happens to hand the first piece of candy to a girl, then we would say "she got the first prize". "First prize" without a definite article will be taken to mean "the prize for being the best". So, you would say "She got the first place available to sit" and "She won first place at the race." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the distinction you are making there, but I don't think people who use the two forms normally make that distinction when they say "got the first prize", at least on this (British) side of the Atlantic. Dbfirs 10:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that when forms of "get" replace forms of "have" indicating possession (e.g. "I've got an answer"), this is informal, but "get" by itself is in no way an informal verb. However, in formal usage it would typically be considered better style to use a more precise verb, such as "won" in this case. [Side comment: "I've got an answer" meaning "I have an answer" is both British and American usage, but American usage typically distinguishes it from "I've gotten an answer", meaning "I've obtained an answer", whereas British usage prefers "got" for both senses.] --50.100.193.107 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the context, you could know what the person meant in either form and you might say it either way. I was pointing out how they are different. "The" is often optional, especially in colloquial prose. "In" vs "at" is the same way in that if you know the context, you know what is meant. People use them interchangeably so much that, to some, they sound the same. Another way to look at it is "First Prize" is a name of the prize. You would not refer to me at as "The Richard", but if you did, I would know what you meant. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I know what you mean, Richard. Is "The Richard" a pub? Or did you mean "as The Richard" rather than "at The Richard"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant as. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]