Language desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

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.

September 5

French for 'Bless you'

Wiktionary lists 'à vos souhaits' as the french for 'bless you'. I have a few questions about this: 1. would 'à Dieu vous bénisse' and 'santé' be considered acceptable alternatives (if so, can I trespass upon you to add them? I'm totally confused by wiktionary's translation thingy)? and 2. how is 'à vos souhaits' pronounced (with regards to intonation especially)? I've seen souhait transcribed /swɛ/ - is this the complete pronunciation, or is there a trace of the vowel in 'sou-'? 76.199.167.204 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "à vos souhaits" only really translates as "bless you" when responding to a sneeze. The more specific English translation of "à vos souhaits" would be "Gesundheit"...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same intuition as AnonMoos--it seems like just a sneeze term. You also hear the less formal à tes souhaits. As for pronunciation, the stress falls on the last syllable (as is usually the case in French); [swɛ] is probably the most accurate transcription for "souhaits", but [suwɛ] would also be accurate (it depends on the speaker and the situation), the [u] (<ou>) is part of the word's underlying form but is usually elided in rapid speech. (That is also something common in French; for instance, je ne sais pas [ʒə nə se pa], for "I don't know", often becomes [ʃe pa].) rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of this - but one doesn't really stress the last syllable in French, stress being very different in French from English, as explained at French_pronunciation#Stress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the first question asked here, "à (que would be grammatically correct) Dieu vous bénisse" is never used. "Santé" is a common informal translation but is, I believe, used mostly outside of France. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion on sneezing

English? Dbfirs 06:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Gesundheit" is a term widely (but not solely) used in parts of America (directly loaned from the German). [It is practically unheard of in the UK.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 07:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was unheard of in the UK, because we are bombarded with American TV. We just never say it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being British, KageTora, (cough, cough) I disagree. People don't tend to sneeze in American TV shows, so only a small minority of people here understand. Unless it happens to be common in Liverpool than here in East Anglia. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that people sneeze in the majority of American TV shows, and that they are more often than not greeted with 'Gesundheit'. I was meaning that the majority of people in the UK will have heard it from American TV shows at some time or another, due to the number of American TV shows we have here. I am pretty sure that I myself must have heard it often enough to have known what it meant before I even studied German. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my experience is that everyone in or with a family connection to the British Army understands (and sometimes uses) "Gesundheit!", because a large proportion of the British Army are at some stage stationed in Germany (often accompanied by their dependent relatives - which is why I used to live there) and consequently acquire and maintain its usage. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The German-born children only speak a little English, but they can already say 'Kindergarten'." JIP | Talk 10:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Gesundheit" and "Bless you" are the most common American responses to a sneeze. Most of us wouldn't have a clue how to pronounce "à vos souhaits", but "Gesundheit" looks fairly obvious. Plus, it kind of sounds like a sneeze itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes spelled "gazoontite" by people who have no idea that it's German. By the way, there's an article Gesundheit... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One time a friend posted on Facebook that she was about to sneeze. I replied "Gesundheit" and her friend corrected me with something like "you spelled kzutight wrong". Lexicografía (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. One semi-common misconception is that "Gesundheit" means "God bless you". It actually just means "health" (as with the Spanish response to a sneeze, "salud"). Leave it to the Germans to use 3 syllables where we use 1. However, what it literally means is "soundness" (along with the frequently-used "ge-" prefix that a German expert would need to step in here and explain). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... for certain values of 'English'. "Gesundheit" is not part of British English. --ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackeen?

[1]: What's a jackeen? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mildly pejorative term for a person from Dublin -- the word is defined at Wiktionary. Looie496 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you can see that entry here. If I may, where does the term come from? Dismas|^(talk) 08:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad poetry

What's it called when a poet (or a doggerel writer) takes liberties with the ordering of a sentence, in order to achieve the desired rhyme or scansion? For instance, crambo mentions a James Boswell poem with the line "Take Punch made of rum that is double" instead of "made of double rum", and a Robert Burns poem that says "I to the crambo-jingle fell" instead of "I fell to the crambo-jingle". The use of "did go" instead of "went" is a common one. The jarring quality of these rearrangements isn't always caused by split infinitives, though. You might put an adjective after the noun, or otherwise massage the sentence into an awkward shape. 213.122.53.53 (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic license more specifically poetic license.--93.241.219.33 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. I looked at that article already, but was disappointed. The two examples from Shakespeare are quite tame, and not at all offensive. I'm interested to know how bad it can get. 81.131.37.131 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term inversion is frequently used for such departures from "normal" word order; but if you want to be fancy, you can call the device anastrophe. (Sometimes hyperbaton is used with this meaning.) When one feels that the word order is particularly awkward, one might call it cacosyntheton. Deor (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, those are some good words. :) 213.122.1.99 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you regard those as jarring (and you've quoted no split infinitives). The result can be grotesque when perpetrated by a bad poet (such as William McGonagall), but I find little wrong with the examples you've given. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "I to the crambo-jingle fell" was a split infinitive, but now I see that it doesn't count because "fell" is in the past tense. (Why does that matter to the concept? Why was the concept of a split infinitive ever thought to matter at all? Who knows.) I couldn't remember what an infinitive is, and I know splitting them isn't actually a bad thing, but intuitively, what seems jarring about these lines is their quality of split-ness. If this was a natural way to speak in the 18th century then I forgive them. I just hate it when people assume poetry entails talking like Yoda. Sometimes bizarre word order, in amateur poetry, isn't even justified by the need to force rhymes or scansion. It just seems to be a style people adopt when they want their words to appear poetical. When they want poetical their words to appear. Ugh. 213.122.6.209 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no infinitive in that at all: "to the crambo-jingle" is a phrase in it, not "to ... fell". As for why they ever mattered, see split infinitive#History of the controversy: a matter of fashion, basically, and no more explicable than any other rule of fashion.

But you're right that it is sometimes "just ... a style people adopt when they want their words to appear poetical". It's very much parallel to the way that some people speak when they want to sound official - using "commence" instead of "begin", for example. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does the word "udderly" mean?

When I was listening the podcast of Scientific American-60 seconds,I find the word "udderly" hardly being understanded.

The text is as follows,"The veterinary medicine prize was given for finding that cows that have names make more milk than those who remain anonymous. Another study that’s udderly original. The medicine prize went to a physician who, for fifty years, cracked the knuckles on only his left hand to test his mother’s contention that knuckle-cracking causes arthritis."

Can any one do me a favor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanxia1988 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pun on udder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a pun on "udder" and "utterly". DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect this is in reference to the IgNobel Prizes, just in case anybody is puzzled. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very old pun that also calls to mind this Tom Swifty joke: "That's not a bull", he uddered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that reminds me of the old joke about the first rule of working on a dairy farm: If you can't tell a bull from a cow, don't start milking.

--Ludwigs2 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should "the" be used with abbreviations such as NOAA

I am guessing that when writing initals such as AMA (American Medical Association), pronounced A - M - A, one would say the AMA, however whan writing initals such as NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), pronounced noah, or OSHA, pronounced o-sha, one does not use the "the". Is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly always how one hears these things on the news. Maybe someone with a style guide could confirm, though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes. There are some what I like to call 'true acronyms' (spoken as a single word rather than as separate letters) that take 'the', but the above are not examples of them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both acronyms and initialisms can take "the" but only some do, by usage and convention. There is no rule. Dbfirs 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But initials for businesses, like IBM or DHL, do not take a "the," even when read as individual letters. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For quick examples, one says "NATO" (usually spelt "Nato" in the British press) but "the U.N." (as well as "the NAACP, and "the ACLU", and, at least its commonest meanings, "the N.R.A." But note that while "the BBC" and "the CBC" take an article, ITV, NBC, CBS, ABC (United States), PBS and CNN don't, even though they don't form pronounceable words like "Nato". I wonder if the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's acronym, also ABC, and SABC (the South African Broadcasting Corporation) take articles like the BBC and the CBC, or drop them like ABC for the American Broadcasting Company. Wikipedia's article on the Australian Broadcasting Corp. suggests that they do take "the". —— Shakescene (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, always "the ABC". Except when used as a descriptor - "ABC staff are taking part in a mass walkout over the issue of ...". Or when it's referred to as "Auntie ABC". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBC doesn't always take an article. If referring to the television or radio channels, or something broadcast on them, it doesn't ("what's on CBC?"). If it's the actual corporation, it usually does ("the CBC announces blah blah blah"...and in that case it is also sometimes called "The Mother Corp"). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems fairly random which initialisms/acronyms are used with 'the' and which aren't. I more often don't use it than do; of the examples given so far, the only ones I'd use "the" with would be AMA, UN, and NAACP. I wonder if it has to do with familiarity (some of these I've never heard of, and so by default wouldn't use the article.) Lexicografía (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American speakers generally don't use an article in front of BBC. Googlemeister (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick translation of Russian (from 1917)

Hey all. Would some good soul mind transcribing and translating the slogans on the two banners from the file on the right for the file description? They're from the February Revolution of 1917, an article I'm working on. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a friend of mine, who's Russian. His response was:

One on the left is "Feed the kids - defenders of the motherland."
One on the right is "Increase payments to the soldiers' families - defenders of freedom and world peace"

Vimescarrot (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Straightforward and heartfelt, but not nearly as catchy as "We will bury you!". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing February and October? AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm saying the Boys of October had much better slogans. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you (and you friend!). Do they have / Could they knock out a quick Russian transcription to add to the file description page, to make it more easily findable? Also, would it be misleading to change the word for "kids" to "boys"? It undoubtedly refers to soldiers, so I'm thinking "boys" is probably more idiomatic. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a transliteration:

Kormitye detyei zaschitnikov rodiny
Pribavku paika semyam soldat zashchitnikam svobody i narodnogo mira.

Note: There’s a spelling error in the left-hand flag. The 3rd word is spelt з-а-с-ч- ...(z-a-s-ch- ...), but the 3rd and 4th letters are more properly spelt with the single letter щ, transliterated as shch. The other flag uses the same word (albeit in a different case) – see the first word on the 3rd line, which correctly uses the letter щ. I think this error needs to be noted and preserved, hence the subtle difference (underlined) in the way I've transliterated the root part of these 2 words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An amendment of the first translation: not "Feed the children - defenders of the motherland", but rather "Feed [plural imperative] the children of the defenders of the motherland", because защитников is the plural genitive form of защитник. Since this is a photo of 1917, the text follows the orthographical rules as they applied before the spelling reform of 1918. The slogan goes: Кормите дѣтей засчитниковъ родины. Without the spelling mistake, it would be Кормите дѣтей защитниковъ родины. And here it is with the modern orthography: Кормите детей защитников родины. --Theurgist (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm finished working with these pictures"

Windows XP Scanner And Camera Wizard offers as a menu option: "I'm finished working with these pictures". Shouldn't it be "I've finished working with these pictures" or is the former correct in American-english? Thanks 92.15.30.74 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase has a different nuance meaning in British English and so sounds odd in this context, but it is normal in American English. If Bill Gates had been English, the Wizard would have said "I've finished working ..." Dbfirs 15:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Finished" is being used as a stative rather than an activity verb (see Lexical aspect). Compare to "I'm done" vs. "*I've done". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this difference in grammar is separate from the lexical differentiation. "I am finished" in British English is rather like "Je suis fini" in French. Dbfirs 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I have finished" is technically more accurate and clear. "I am finished" or "I am done", by themselves, have an unintended double meaning, as "finished" or "done" are colloquialisms for "defeated" or "dead" (hence the humor in a famous Zsa Zsa Gabor quote). Technically, it's the work itself that's finished, and "I am finished" is more of a colloquialism. But the addendum "...with [whatever activity]" should take away any misunderstanding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm finished working with these pictures" sounds like something a politician might say when presented with photos of him in a compromising situation. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its odd that it must have been checked by several people during writing and testing of the software, yet they all let it through. Along with all the other bad grammar I've seen from Microsoft. 92.28.252.63 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four-week month

Did there used to be a name for a four-week month of 28 days in the UK, in contrast to a calendar month? I have a feeling that there was, but I cannot remember what the name was. (I do not mean February). Thanks 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean sidereal month (not exactly 28 days), or are you looking for a more colloquial term, like fortnight is used for 14 days? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The colloquial term. 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only know of "four-week month". Lunar month is slightly longer. Dbfirs 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisks

Thank you for answering my question earlier about asterisks. My question now is also about asterisks. Is an asterisk, to show there is a foot note, universal on all languages? Do most all languages use asterisks for this? What is used in Japanese? Lantern Red (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a typographical standard rather than a language standard. Even within English, different publications might use different standards; for instance, some use asterisks and daggers, while others might use numbered or lettered footnotes. Off the top of my head, a lot of Chinese books use numbered footnotes in little circles (like ①, but usually superscript). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, I have seen on rare occasions the asterisk used - very rarely, though. More usually I have seen the same as Rjanag says - ^①②③, and so on. Note, that the asterisk that is produced on a keyboard when using Japanese IME and typing shift+8 (＊) is not used in this way, at least to the best of my knowledge. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rather pretty symbol ※ is sometimes used in Japanese for a purpose similar to asterisks, although I can't remember exactly how it works - I don't think the reference text is placed in an actual footnote as such; I think it's more like a bullet point with a particular meaning of "reference follows". 213.122.1.99 (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is for adding extra notes at the end - like 'Note 1', 'Note 2', etc., in English. If a specific part of the text needed you to reference a specific note, then it would say 以下参照 ('see below') or something similar. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch uses asterisks. French too. French hero Asterix is named after it. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Word

This question may be inappropriate for the Reference Desk, and may precipitate non-productive arguments or disputes. Please restrict responses to neutral, factual, sourced statements.

I need a word that describes a strong burning desire to rub oneself against another girl who is beautiful and adorable and lovely and perfect, but one would never do something sexual to her. She is cute like an adorable kitten. The word I want is somewhere between lust, cuddle and worship. Adorfui (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frottage? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Adorfui, but rubbing yourself against someone tends to be construed as something sexual, whether you want it to or not. You should probably avoid doing it in public places. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the question as saying they wanted to do that, but don't. "but one would never do something sexual to her" 71.170.245.203 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP needs to be more specific about what he intends to rub on what, as there is the "sexual touch" and the "non-sexual touch". For example, rubbing his left arm against her right shoulder (or vice versa) might not be all that sexual. Or shaking hands or giving a high five. Then again, they might be, if the guy is as horny [and by the way, that's the word he's looking for] as he says. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP clearly stated they WERE NOT going to rub anything on anything only that they felt the desire to, so what they want to rub on what is irrelevant. In reply to the OP, the only word I can think of which fits the description is "waifu", used not in the Japanese way which means wife but in the Wapanese way which means "adorable kittenish want to protect and cuddle", usually extended towards anime characters. 79.88.221.54 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the OP talks about rubbing oneself against "another" girl, so it looks like the OP is also female. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]