Language desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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.

November 23

Nerd v. Geek

Which of the terms is more insulting? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say geek is more insulting. Being bookish and socially inept isn't nearly as bad as biting the heads off live chickens. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reference to biting chicken heads off. AIUI both terms are used to label a socially inept, bookish person who is interested in an "intellectual" subject such as IT or chemistry. Would such a person use "nerd" to describe themself and regard "geek" as an insult? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Geek show for the reference. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only my personal opinion, but I would agree that "geek" is more insulting. It implies a degree of obsession with a subject, beyond mere social inadequacy. A nerd is someone you don't want to meet at a party unless you're interested in the subject of his nerdishness. A geek is someone you don't want to meet anywhere, especially if you're interested in the subject of his geekiness. Incidentally, "nerd" is a semi-official term in UK patent law - see Rockwater v Coflexip paras 7 - 10, per Jacob LJ. Tevildo (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, the term "geek" is highly insulting, which is why Best Buy doesn't publicly use the term "Geek Squad".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My husband proudly associates himself with both terms and doesn't find them at all insulting! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those terms used to be kind of insulting, but now they're worn like a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd implies intelligence, Geek doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind when I make myself look like a fool. I do mind when I look like a fool unintentionally. These words are now embraced by some because it transfers the power of the word. I'm happy to be a geek and/or nerd. The context matters if someone else is calling me a geek or nerd. Its all about intent. The word itself isn't insulting, but the reason for them saying it might be. --Onorem (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant, particularly the mouseover text. Matt Deres (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Arabic

Hi. First thing to say, I don't know anything about the Arabic language. I'm translating some English articles about Governorates of Lebanon into my first language. As the community there asks members to use native names for foreign geographical names, for example they use "München", not "Munich", I need to know how to convert Arabic script into Latin script. For example, the native name of Beqaa Governorate is البقاع, which is transliterated into Al-Biqā', but the English article uses "Beqaa", while Babylon.com gives "Bekaa". Why "Beqaa"? Should I write "Biqa" or "Biqa' " or "Bekaa" or "Beqaa"? Please help. Gaconnhanhnhen (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It sounds as if you think there is a right answer which you just need somebody to tell you. I'm afraid there isn't. There are many different systems, some favoured by some organisations, and others by others. Furthermore, romanisation is language dependent: an English romanisation of Arabic would use 'y' for ئ and 'j' for ج, whereas a German romanisation would use 'j' and 'dsch' respectively for the same sounds. So you need a romanisation appropriate to your target language. As for 'Beqaa' - the rule for foreign names in the English Wikipedia is to use the most common name in English, but it sounds as if your target Wikipedia has a different rule. You might find the article Romanization of Arabic helpful, but in the end, I think you'll need to ask for advice on the particular Wikipedia you're using. --ColinFine (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is no one universally accepted romanization of Arabic. That's why there are maybe as many 112 possible spellings of Muammar Gaddafi. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaconnhanhnhen -- On the one hand, there are scholarly transliteration systems, which attempt to unambiguously represent all relevant features of full Arabic writing (i.e. with vowel diacritics and other diacritics included). On the other hand, there are rough-and-ready journalistic-style systems, which are concerned with an approximate rendering of Arabic spoken sounds (more than Arabic writing) into the sounds of the non-Arabic target language, as reflected using the spelling patterns of the target language. Most scholarly transliterations won't use "e" or "o" to represent Arabic short vowels, to start with... The "aa" in journalistic type renderings is presumably to provide some indication of the voiced pharyngeal `ayn consonant at the end of the word without resorting to special symbols. For what goes italicized in parentheses near the top of the article, use Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic; for most other purposes, use the most common spelling found in English (if there is one).

Then of course there's always the Lawrence of Arabia method: Arabic names won't go into English, exactly, for their consonants are not the same as ours, and their vowels, like ours, vary from district to district. There are some "scientific systems" of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a washout for the world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are.

-- AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual answer depends on your goals and means. Do you want to use fully-diacritic scientific transliteration or diacritic-free 26-letter one? Do you want to use Anglocentric or adopted to Vietnamese? I am sure there are already standards for Arabic-to-Vietnamese transliteration, as one should reflect somehow Arabic in Vietnamese library catalogues and maps at least. Better to follow them.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Thanks for your explanations. There are so many things to say about the difficulties for local people when translating articles here. The government keeps harping on great things but they do nothing to help formalize a set of transliteration rule for foreign names. Books or the media have no rule either. Sometimes they use English names, less much often French names, sometimes their unofficial transliteration. There's no rule at all, so as a last resort the community asks members to use native names though they may be extremely exotic to us, for example "München" is very uncommon compared to "Munich" (here in my country), but there are at least 5 transliteration forms (not to mention those forms without dash), none of which has been officialized: "Mu-ních", "Mu-nich", "Miu-ních", "Miu-nich" and "Mu-níc". I think I'll choose "Beqaa" as English is more common. Many thanks. Gaconnhanhnhen (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just some explanations why this is used. Beqaa is not strictly scientific. Letter ⟨e⟩ is used here as in Levantine Arabic short phoneme /i/ is pronounced close to sound [e]. Or another explanation (less probable): they tried to reflect Arabic /i/ with English spelling hence ⟨e⟩ which in open syllables is pronounced [iː] in English. Letter ⟨q⟩ rather reflects Arabic writing while ⟨k⟩ rather reflects the local dialect where there no Standard Arabic sound [q]. Double ⟨aa⟩ is to reflect long Arabic /aː/ (spelled ⟨ā⟩ in scientific notation). And all the variants are used.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Arabic long a (ا) is not generally transcribed into English journalistic style transcriptions as "aa". I bet the doubled vowel letter partly reflects the pharyngeal ع consonant... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could also write in social media style, as "el-beq3a". --Soman (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the article Arabic chat alphabet which covers this style. --Theurgist (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, it's generally not appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles (except those which discuss chat Arabic itself)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin text from the title page of a book

Hi, just wanted to check if I translated these Latin texts from the title page of a book into English correctly:

Inertis est nescire quot sibi liceat. → Dullards are ignorant of what they are allowed to do.
Hac ego grandavus posui tibi, candide Lector. → I, of great age, put this to you, friendly reader.

Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is cowardly/lazy not to know what one is permitted

Hence old I have put this before thee, innocent reader.

μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Thus we see the danger of relying on Google Translate. By the way, the letters "I.C." appear after Edward Coke's name. Is this a misprinting for "P.C." (Privy Councillor), or something else? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's "J. C.", standing for "juris consultus" - see this 1797 edition of the Institutes. Tevildo (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hence old I"? I thought the OP wanted it translated into English? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. Yes, I did wonder what that means, exactly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hence I, who am very old, have put...". Modifying subject pronouns with adjectives isn't really done in English. (I once spent some time training a German friend of mine to stop saying "Poor she!" and start saying "Poor her!" when commiserating with someone.) Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed perfectly clear, thanks, Angr. Of course, I have heard some people say they find Tolkien difficult, which always surprises little old me. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's another one: "Prodesse, non Obesse. Illud ex animo siet, hoc præter voluntatem accidet." How should this be translated into English, and is it a quotation from a well-known author? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Horace's Typographical antiquities. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found that one, but Coke's text doesn't appear in any version of Ars Poetica that I can find. (The preceding text, "Sunt delicta tamen quibus ignouisse uelimus..." is at lines 347 - 350). Tevildo (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are still looking for a translation:

To be in favor

Not to oppose

Be the former from the heart (lit., "spirit")

The latter haps against the will.

μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You've lost me at "haps against the will", though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Occurs against choice"? "To hap" is in Shakespeare and at Wiktionary. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so ... — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]