Language desk
< January 11	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 13 >

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 12

"Pandian" meaning in Chinese

Can anyone tell me the meaning of "Pandian" in Chninese? Some one said that it meant for occupied land. Can anyone give me the link of Chinese-English dictionary to refer the meaning of "Pandian" in English? Someone told me that in chinese it refers to "Occupied Land". But I can't find that dictionary in online and what dictionary it is.

There are five places in the name of Pandian in China. Dozens of Highways are there in China in the name of Pandian. One of the online chinese dictionary shows "Pandian" meant for the words related to Tax and Wages.

But I want to know why that places named as "Pandian" and in Which period That places were named and by whom they were named. Tag my name if any one answer.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenkasi Subramanian There are two different Chinese words transliterated into English as Pandian:

盘店 is the process of transferring your shop and goods to someone else. 盘 is difficult to translate accurately but similar to transfer. 店 is simply a shop.

潘店 is a common place time whose etymology is difficult to determine without reading related chorographies, because all of five places (I listed three of them in Chinese Wikipedia) are rather small towns. My best guess is that 潘 is a surname (because other meanings are extraordinarily rare), while 店 refers to occupied land. That is to say, 潘店 is likely to be a occupied land owned by the Pan family in ancient times. Although this kind of naming is quite common in China, I'm not sure whether all of five places are named after a Pan family in history.

--HNAKXR (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:HNAKXR Thanks for your info Dude.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian surname of a married woman

Our article Eastern Slavic naming customs says, "On marriage, women usually adopt the surname of their husband" and "As with all Slavic adjectives, family names have different forms depending on gender — for example, the wife of Борис Ельцин (Boris Yel'tsin) is Наина Ельцина (Naina Yel'tsina)." But how are surnames in -ovich feminized? I know that patronyms in -ovich have feminine equivalents in -ovna, but is this true of surnames as well? Dmitri Shostakovich's wife's name was Irina; was she Irina Shostakovna? Irina Shostakovicha? Something else? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change at all, even in oblique cases: Irina Shostakovich, Iriny Shostakovich, Irine Shostakovich etc.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are surnames in -ovich even considered adjectives then? The article does also say, "Noun-family-names like "Lebed'" ... are not changed based on gender - the feminine form is the same as masculine." Does the masculine form inflect in oblique cases (Дмитрия Шостаковича, etc.)? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. From his Russian WP article: "Прадед Шостаковича по отцовской линии ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, they (surnames on -ov, -in, -ovich) were considered possessive adjectives some a thousand years ago. :) Now they are nouns.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the -ovich names declined only for masculine holders of these names? I know the -in and -ov names are declined for both sexes ([1]). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because -ovich came from the masculine form -ov-itjь of possessive adjectives. I don't know why the feminine form -ov-ьna in surnames hasn't lived till our days.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it doesn't decline because no feminine name ending in a consonant (or -o) ever declines. Once it's set that there's no feminine form of this name, i.e. that nominative ends in -ich, it can't decline. As to why there's no feminine nominative form ending in -a (which would decline), I don't know, but probably because it would look too much like a patronymic, and unlike -ov and -in forms, no male-line ethnic Russian would have this as a last name, it's a typical South Slav last name (or Jewish). Male forms declines like a patronymic purely as a coincidence, all foreign male last names ending in a consonant decline. --108.202.177.21 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, hypothetically, I could construct a sentence about Dmitri Shostakovich and his wife, where they were the object of a verb and their names were in accusative; the word "Shostakovicha" would refer to the composer (although it looks like the feminine nominative form, if there were one), and the male-looking "Shostakovich" would refer to his wife. Cool. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it works in Serbo-Croatian, more or less. However, since it resists indeclinable nouns more strongly than Russian, female surnames (on -ić, but others as well) are supposed to be "possessivized" back when the first name is omitted: Video sam Dmitrija Šostakoviča i Ninu Šostakovič > Video sam Šostakoviča i Šostakovičevu. In practice, they are often left undeclined, and there's even a difference in Serbian (requiring adjectivization) and Croatian standards, AFAIK.
On the other hand, all female surnames are supposed to be possesivized in Czech and Slovak, in all forms: see sk:Angela Merkelová, sk:Ana Ivanovićová. No such user (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian translation, worldcat

What would be a good translation of the "Publisher" line from this page? --Soman (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa : Kollegii︠a︡ propagandy sot︠s︡ial'nogo soznanii︠a︡ pri Ob"edinënnykh Anarkhicheskikh organizat︠s︡ii︠a︡kh ; 1920

That means something like "Odessa: College of Propaganda of Social~~ist~~ Consciousness of the United Anarchical Organisations; 1920". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"United Anarchical Organisations"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Rojomoke (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought so, too. But there we have it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Well, is hierarchy the only kind of organization? —Tamfang (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be "social consciousness" rather than "socialist consciousness"? --Amble (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I thought it could be either, until I checked. Thanks, Amble. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it better "under"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"College" is technically correct, but confusing to a modern reader. It has the same sense as in electoral college, not as in an educational institution. --108.202.177.21 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So "Board of... under...".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on that one. Where I come from, colleges are almost always educational institutions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you differing on? 108's point is that English college sounds like it refers to an educational institution, but this коллегия isn't an educational institution. So Lüboslóv suggested board instead. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My indenting indicates I was responding to 108, not Lüboslóv. I thought 108 is saying "college" would suggest an electoral college to "a modern reader", whereas what he feels we need is a word that suggests an educational institution. Is he saying that neither of these meanings is the one we need here? (If so, his wording is no less confusing than that which he draws attention to.) And how do we know just what we need; in the absence of any context to guide us, just the title of an entity, wouldn't the default translation of коллегия be appropriate here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were responding to 108. I guess the confusion arose because in his sentence beginning, "It has the same sense as..:", it is referring not to the English word college but to the Russian word коллегия. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I am the same user as 108.202.177.21 above). I am sorry for confusion. Коллегия can only mean a commission, or a board, a group of officials tasked with something, or something of that sort. It can't ever mean a university. Because it's cognate with English "college" (both come from Latin collegium), you may be tempted to translate it as "college" because "college" can be and was used in this sense also, as in electoral college, college of cardinals, etc., but it's a bad idea because that's no longer its primary meaning. "Board", on the other hand, is unambiguous and is better here. --172.56.30.6 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Committee" be an acceptable translation? That would be the most usual word for such a group of persons in English. Tevildo (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would, although generally there is a subtle difference. Коллегия (collegium) is some union, or a meeting, of professionals or officials belonging to some community. It has not necessarily a determined purpose. Комитет (committee) is a body created (usually by certain superior body) to resolve certain problem(s). Professionals or officials from different (sub)organizations may be appointed or invited. Though, in this particular context a “committee” seems fine. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To 108 turned 172: I never imagined that there is some sort of formal school where one went to learn how to be socially conscious about anarchy. In English we have things like the Royal Australian College of Physicians etc, which you only get into once you've done your formal learning at university and demonstrated you've acquired a certain degree of professional skill in practice. I take the point that the entity in question is probably more like a board/commission/committee, but "college" is not necessarily inappropriate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think one could imagine a school of this sort, so its best to avoid confusion, that's all. --108.202.177.21 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]