Language desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

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 3[edit]

Since the dawn of time[edit]

Where did this phrase originate? I'm suspecting that it was coined because it seems awkward to ascribe a dawn to time itself; how can there be a dawn of time if time didn't even exist? Thanks for any input. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Arrow of time for some interesting ideas of how time works. The idea is that time only exists as a means of ordering events. Before there were events, there was no time. So, before the universe was created (see Cosmogony and Big Bang) there were no events, so there was no time. Time began when events began to happen that needed ordering. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time also has sands. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that comes from directly watching hourglasses (some old-timey soap-opera introduction began with the narrator intoning "Like sand in a hourglass...", I believe). AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"… so go the days of our lives." Not all "sands of time" references are related to hourglasses, however. Many derive ultimately from lines in Longfellow's famous "Psalm of Life"—"Lives of great men all remind us / We can make our lives sublime, / And, departing, leave behind us / Footprints on the sands of time"—which some think were inspired by the discovery of fossilized dinosaur footprints in sandstone. (Certainly, Johnny Mercer seems to have had Longfellow's poem in mind when he wrote the lyrics to "I Wanna Be a Dancin' Man" for Fred Astaire: "Gonna leave my footsteps on the sands of time, if I never leave a dime.")

On the "dawn of time" question, I, like Julia Rossi, am drawing a blank. All I can add is that the OED, s.v. dawn, has no quotations illustrating this expression—the closest is "dawn of history" from 1878, but that's not really the same thing. Deor (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote is "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives". (I can't believe I've actually watched this show sufficiently often to have memorised it, but there you go, life's rich pageant has enough for all of us.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; those links are interesting. In case I've been misunderstood, I was asking who first used the phrase "since the dawn of time" in a piece of writing, not whether it makes sense. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I return with google-fu in tatters, having found that the origins you seek are lost also in the mists of time. Send out the next one while I tell you a story, that essay checkers hate the phrase, Shakespeare won't own it and even the writers of Genesis eschew it though ghits show that multitudes use it every time it turns around. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED records no such figurative senses before 1633:

["Dawn, n."] 2. fig. The beginning, commencement, rise, first gleam or appearance (of something compared to light); an incipient gleam (of anything).
1633 P. Fletcher Purple Isl. xii. xlvi, So spring some dawns of joy, so sets the night of sorrow. 1752 Johnson Rambler No. 196 32 From the dawn of manhood to its decline. 1767 Babler II. 100 If he possesses but a dawn of spirit. 1823 Lamb Elia Ser. 1 Old Actors, You could see the first dawn of an idea stealing slowly over his countenance. 1878 Stewart & Tait Unseen Univ. ii. §50. 69 From the earliest dawn of history to the present day.

OED would record any earlier occurrence it was aware of; so we can conclude that as far as OED is concerned dawn of time is later than 1633.

Here is one from before November 1694, if the author in question is indeed John Tillotson (1630–1694):

They loved; but such their guileless passion was
As in the dawn of time informed the heart
Of innocence and undissembling truth. (In James Thomson, The Seasons and The castle of indolence, 1727)

Here is one from 1906 that seems to echo Tillotson, with rather more ferocity:

He nodded to her, and she came and sat by him, and they had more drink, and then he went upstairs into a room with her, and the wild beast rose up within him and screamed, as it has screamed in the jungle from the dawn of time. (Upton Sinclair, The Jungle, chapter 22)

But none of those is strictly since the dawn of time. The earliest I find for that is from Transactions of the Annual Meetings of the Western Literary Institute and College of Professional Teachers, 1839. See the text on the page here in Google books.

There seems to have been a small flurry of instances of since the dawn of time in America from then on, including this lovely one from 1840.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the nick of time, this beautifully meandering thread defies what I got from the arrows of it. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the responses! They were extremely helpful. The reason I asked this question was that I have always heard "since the dawn of time" being criticized as a sentence that students should avoid in their essays. The first time I've seen it used appropriately was several days ago, when reading the second sentence in 2001: A Space Odyssey. That really sparked my curiosity. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recliners found in cells[edit]

"Texas jail closes after recliners found in cells" is the headline of this AP report. Among the other objectionable items found in the cells, why did recliners make the headline? Perhaps I lack the imagination to use one in a nefarious way, or is this some other device? If the latter, the recliner page could do with a revision.-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jails are for punishment, not for relaxing as if one were at a vacation resort. --Nricardo (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this seems a marginal consideration relative to the other offenses noted in the body of the article. (On the other hand, it certainly attracted my attention the way other headlines don't!) If this were just a matter of "quality-of-life" items, it's certainly less portable, therefore less fungible, than the usual drugs/cigarettes/weapons. I posted this query to the Language RD rather than Miscellaneous , wondering whether this is a Texas regionalism that's escaped me in the decades I've been reading about my native USA from overseas. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Texas, and I've never heard "recliner" used to refer to anything other than a recliner. But Texas is a big state, and I can't claim to speak for everyone's lexical competence. —An gr 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the story, though, it seems like more than just that. What I'm thinking is that any upholstered furniture can be used to hide things in. —An gr 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would anyone hide a recliner in a cell? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, someone might hide a knife or a gun in the recliner. —An gr 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean relatives might smuggle in a metal file when they bring a cake or a... recliner? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that some of the cells locked from the inside, I suspect not much hiding needed to be done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online Italian language resources[edit]

I find myself living in a city that borders on Italy (literaly, see Nova Gorica vs. Gorizia), and it turns out that not being able to speak Italian is often a bother, so I want to learn at least some basic Italian. Could somebody point me to a good online resource for studying Italian? A google search finds some sites, but I can't really make out which are good and which not, hence the question here. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For vocabulary, see LanguageGuide: Foreign Language Vocabulary, Grammar, and Readings.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was starting to learn Italian, I was surprised by the huge number of pretty high-quality resources to be found for free on the web; excluding a dictionary (which you'll definitely need to buy), it is possible to learn the basics of the language without spending any money at all. However, most of the sites I used were in my native German, so I'm not sure they will be of much use to you. I found this online course in German pretty well-structured and a good way to get all the basic grammar rules, then there's a free Italian-German online dictionary here. In English, I found this series of tutorials pretty useful although they are not as well-structured and interactive as the German course I linked to above. Here's a huge resource of vocabulary games which are great to practice basic vocabulary and grammar rules if you have 10 minutes to spare. A hugely useful resource is Italian Verbs which gives you a complete searchable index of all Italian verb forms (great for finding and practicing irregular forms). As a sidenote, once you've got the basic grammar and a solid basic vocabulary, I found the Italian Wikipedia a wonderful (and, of course, free) resource for reading lots of interesting stuff and expanding my vocabulary - its coverage of Italy-related topics is often much better than here on en (just compare Cinema of Italy and it:Cinema italiano) -- Ferkelparade π 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging vowels[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Understanding_foreign_accents.

What English vowels are merged more frequently by foreign speakers and what are the worst mergers?--88.27.176.105 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally it has to depend on the the vowel inventory of the speaker's native tongue ...--K.C. Tang (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[æ] (the "short a" vowel as in cat) is not too widely distributed as a vowel phoneme among the languages of the world, but slightly mispronouncing it does not usually lead to serious miscomprehension (as long as you don't merge it with [ε], the "short e" vowel as in pet). What I find really kills overall comprehension (more than pronouncing one or two specific vowel qualities slightly off) is not pronouncing English with strong stress and accompanying vowel reductions in unstressed syllables. Getting this wrong is guaranteed to make your attempts at speaking English sound quaint and very very foreign (the linguistic terms are "stress-timed language" vs. "syllable-timed language"). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

minding your "BI" business[edit]

I grew up in New York City and in the 1960's-70's we commonly used the phrase "mind your BI business" to say "mind your own business." Problem is none of us knows what the "BI" stood for or what the origin of that phrase is. Alternatively, some think the phrase is "bee eyed."

Internet searches have yielded nothing so far. Anyone have any ideas?

I always thought that it meant "Big Idea". I dont know if that clears it up any more, or only creates more confusion, but that's what I was told as a child in 1980's NYC. - J.R. 12/09/09.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcapucci (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that, too. I thought it was the "bi" in "biz", like "show biz". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The B.I. doesn't stand for anything. It is used to indicate that the speaker means "bizness" as in the slangy version which is supposed to be more serious than regular "business". As in, not BU- business, but BI- BIZNESS. It is similar in structure to, for example, "small-c capitalism". -- 3D, 5-2-2013

I am rather certain that the "B.I." stands for a buttinsky--a person who butts-into other peoples business. The origin of buttinsky is likely either Polish or Yiddish. The phrase in question essentially conveys "stay out of this" and "mind your own business." A little late but I hope helpful, July 2011

"however" as conjunction[edit]

What is the status of "however" as a conjunction, in a sentence like this?:

The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however[,] it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.

Merriam-Webster tells me it's a conjunction, but in the same sense? This usage feels like a run-on sentence to me. I always reword these sentences or insert a semi-colon. Is the above grammatically and stylistically valid? You see it quite often. Thanks, –Outriggr § 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The role of "however" is certainly a matter of opinion. In your sentence, however, it's wrong. You need a comma after it to prevent reading "however it presents" as "in whatever way it presents". This is mandatory. Put the comma in, and we have "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." Now there is another problem. "However" wants to attach to the first clause. A band-aid solution is a semicolon: "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." This at least kind of works, and it is the format that purists object to, I think. Me, I usually leave that the way it is when I run into it. It's clear enough, and enough people do it to make it de facto OK. I don't write that, though. It's awkward, and it lacks in expressiveness what it saves in ink.

Not that it is wrong but I would suggest reducing the comma load by moving around the parts to read "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people reacting to the unfolding drama rather than heros." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"However" is also called an adverb by [2 MW], and I can't say the distinction is clear to me. This is one of those cases where the parts of speech fail us, I think. (Does anyone know how to make a link like that display right?) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "however" can also be used to describe an adjective, for example: "The motorboat cannot overcome the rapids, however fast it may be." ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly favor a semicolon before "however" and a comma after it in such sentences. AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MB's analysis well enough, including the requirement for a comma to make clear that in whatever way is not meant. I also agree with AnonMoos (AM) that in cases like this there should be a semicolon, and that this is no mere band-aid solution, pace MB. So AM and I would want this (assuming that the words themselves are not to be altered):

The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.

I also agree with MB that parts of speech are a slippery matter, and that this is manifest here. OED and SOED classify however only as an adverb. (And note, Astro: it remains an adverb when it modifies an adjective.) The much more subtle and expansive Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999) has it this way: however is an adverbial (and being a single word it is an adverb). Specifically, it is a linking adverbial: it "shows the speaker/writer's perception of the relationship between two units of discourse" (p. 875). Some others in this same category are lastly, for one thing, to conclude, in other words, and therefore. But however belongs to a different subcategory than those. The linking adverbials on the other hand, alternatively, and in contrast are contrastive linking adverbials; and though and anyway are concessive linking adverbials. Longman gives however, along with yet, intermediate status as a contrastive/concessive linking adverbial (pp. 878–9, 881).

NOW: all of that applies to however in one sense. It does not apply to it in sentences like this (inspired by Astro's example, but with fast as an adverb now):

However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

How are we to classify however in this sentence? The matter is rarely addressed well; but I was surprised to find that even Longman does not, so far as I can see, settle the matter. It puts whenever and wherever in the category circumstance adverbials, with an implied subcategory marking condition and contingency (p. 844). (Note the linking function here too; circumstance and linking functions overlap.) But however in our sentence does not comport itself exactly as those two do.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a way forward. We could substitute like this:

However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel. [Our original]

Whenever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

Wherever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

But also:

However you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

However can function by itself to mark condition and contingency, making it parallel to whenever and wherever; but it also enters into the construction of indefinitely many complex adverbials such as however fast, however well, and so on, each of which is itself parallel to whenever and wherever. I intend to continue my search through Longman's minute analyses; but we could wish to see all this set out more lucidly. Longman is corpus-based, and very ambitious; I suppose it can't achieve everything, or make everything equally transparent and retrievable.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the analysis. I certainly agree with the semicolon approach, but had a moment of doubt given how often I see the construction in question (though never, come to think of it, in professional writing). –Outriggr § 06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic language translation[edit]

For the article Fahd's Revolutionary Organization, how should the following be translated?: منظمة فهد الثورية : اضطرار مؤسسها القائد العمالي الرفيق حكمت كوتاني للجوء في كندا ورحيله عن الدنيا في منفاه البعيد --Soman (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own understanding is that it means that the organization went defunct as its leaders went into exile in Canada. Correct? --Soman (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything after that last word? Wrad (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the last word is البعيد. The source of the text is [1]. --Soman (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about how its founder and leader was sentenced to exile and went to Canada and died early in his exile. I don't see anything about the organization being defunct, but it would seem to be a natural reaction. Wrad (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

german to english[edit]

Can you please tell me what the following says. I was sent this from my nieces husband that doesn't write english.

"ne, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meier Eltern war"

Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinano55 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nein, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meiner Eltern wäre" means "No, but Jen is sick and I had to clean and cook so that everything would be prepared for the arrival of my parents." German "Ne" might be equivalent to English "Naw". (See pronunciation: nein, ne, nö, net - WordReference Forums.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "war" rather than "wäre" is okay too; the implication is that everything was in fact ready for his parents' arrival, but he had to cook and clean to get it that way. I'd have spelled the first word "Nee" with two e's, but it's mostly a spoken word rather than a written one, so spelling can vary. —An gr 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

latin numbers declinability[edit]

Hi, I've made some effort to find this one out for myself, and I'm fairly sure I know the answer, I'm just looking for explicit confirmation. Are latin numbers like viginti unus declinable? I know the books say all numbers from 4 to 100 are not, so obviously that includes 21, but I'm wondering if the terminal part, the unus, is considered declinable, on the basis of unus, -a, -um, while viginti is kept indeclinable. I would expect not, since unus is singular, and viginti unus plural, but it's good to get it precisely. I am also interested in general in what happens to numbers like 101, 102, 103, and 1001, 1002, etc. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Gildersleeve and Lodge the indeclinability is only stated with respect to simple number words, while "Compound Numerals" are discussed separately, and the specific example of annos unum et viginti ("twenty one years", accusative case) is given... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Genesis 11 Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata and Esdrae 2 Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength's examples show quite clearly what is also illustrated (but not, damnit, made explicit, as AnonMoos points out) in Gildersleeve and Lodge (see §96; §94 is in fact misleading, since it gives for example ūnus, ūna, ūnum for "one", but only vīgintī ūnus for "twenty-one"). Where they occur in higher compound numbers, ūnus, dūo, and trēs are in fact declined.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the interesting and helpful answer, once again, It's been emotional (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]