Language desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

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.

June 24

Equivalent for German adverbial ordinal numbers

Here is another issue I've been puzzling about for quite a while now: Is there an English equivalent form for ordinal numbers used in an adverbial way like in German, e. g. when we write: "1. bin ich müde. 2. habe ich kein Geld mehr und 3. will ich nach Hause" (= "Firstly, I'm tired. Secondly, I don't have any money left and thridly, I want to go home") — though I must say, that this notation is informal, of course! So, do you use numbers this way in English, too?--Curc (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in English one can write "I don't want to go there because (1) I'm tired, (2) I don't have any money left, and (3) I want to go home", but I think that when reading that aloud, most English speakers would read the numerals as cardinal numbers rather than ordinals. Deor (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and the more formal version (firstly ... secondly ...) is normally written in words, not using numerals. I've never seen "1ly" or "2ly" as abbreviations. Dbfirs 19:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still another version drops the -ly, as in "First, I'm tired. Second, I don't have...". This also is written in words, not 1st, 2nd, etc. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup! ;-) Now, you have in fact solved a real mystery for me, since I couldn't find anything suitable on the web. So thanks once again and have a nice Sunday. Best--Curc (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can use letters of the alphabet: "A, I'm tired. B, I don't have....". Humorously, comedians are known to mix them up: "A, I'm tired, and 2, I don't have...." —Stephen (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiarity of German (and possibly other Germanic languages):

1. ...

2. ...

3. ...

usw

Translates as "first ... second ... third ... etc." (i.e. though they look like cardinals they are actually ordinals). 94.195.147.35 (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I fixed your indentation.)

This is because German uses "." after a number in digits to indicate an ordinal, whereas English and Romance languages use abbreviations of the ordinal suffix, so "1." in German means "1st", whereas in a list like the above in English, the "." is just a punctuation mark. I think the Scandinavian languages do it like German too. No, the article is Ordinal indicator. Danish and Norwegian use the period, but Swedish abbreviates the suffix. The article lists about a dozen other languages that do use the period. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Navy report...

In this US Navy article, you will find the following statement: "Missions of the HST CSG focus heavily on maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts, which help establish conditions for regional stability." — Question: Wouldn't "theater" normally have to be placed after "security cooperation", since it signifies a place where security cooperations are performed? Admittedly, I find this construction somewhat strange, but I might be mistaken. What do the native speakers say?--Curc (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be exactly as it is, "theater security cooperation" refers to security cooperation in a military "theater of operations", whereas "security cooperation theater" would make no sense at all (at least not in this context). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Then I must have misunderstood something.--Curc (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Security cooperation theater refers to a very dull play genre, on Off-off-off-Broadway. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a variant of security theater. —Tamfang (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

antonym of "cogent"

what are the 'antonym(s)' of "cogent"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.25.115 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@68.151.25.115: Incoherent, unconvincing, invalid. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the name form kept while the meaning is not translated?

I observe that, in Jewish and Native American and Chinese cultures, people give meaningful names to their children in their own language. Jewish families may give their children Hebrew names; Chinese families give their kids Chinese names; and Native American families give their kids names from specific American Indian tribes. Also, Chinese names are not derived from a standard set of names. They are just made up on the spot in the Chinese language. Though, some logograms tend to be more popular than others, so it is possible to find different individuals with the same given name. But the logogram itself is not recognized as a name. Why do some cultures borrow names from other languages in other cultures, while other cultures create meaningful names in their own language? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking families also sometimes invent new more or less meaningful names for their children, but there's less need for a unique given name in "Western" cultures since the number of different surnames is infinitely larger than among Han Chinese (see Chinese surname), where the three most common surnames are used by almost a quarter of the total population (and the 100 most common surnames are used by 85% of the total population), and a large number of given names, and preferably a unique one, thus are needed to be able to tell people apart. And the reason why given names used in "Western" cultures often are of "foreign origin", i.e. in a different language, is very simple, most names in common use are from the Bible. There are some exceptions, though, because many names used in Scandinavia are of Scandinavian origin ( such as "Ulf", meaning wolf, and "Björn", meaning bear). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the number of created surnames will lead people to choose unique given names. According to this [YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p-Jdjo7sSQ&t=6s], the Chinese used to have 12,000 recorded surnames, but 3,100 is currently in use, including the most popular ones. The fact is, when two people marry, one person will pass down the surname to the offspring. In many families, this means the father's family name, as the children are part of the father's family. I am aware that the Chinese has a belief that it is very bad practice to name someone after someone else, because it is a sign of disrespect of the ancestor or historical famous person. Also, the Chinese today may have a formal Chinese name, a Chinese nickname which is used most often by family and friends, and an English name (for doing business). They still make up a name in their own language, though. But the name composition (the individual logograms) is not recognized as one recognized name. In any case, that's not my question. My question is, why English speakers don't name their kids based on English words as a normal cultural practice, not an exception? Maybe someone names their kid, "Pure", instead of "Catherine", which means "pure". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most given names used in "Western" cultures are, as I pointed out in my reply above, originally from the Bible, and are not seen as foreign in the countries where they are used, since they have been in common use in Western Europe for almost two thousand years by now (they also differ depending on language, for example Petrus/Pedro/Pierre/Peter, Paulus/Pablo/Paul, Andreas/Andrés/André/Andrew/Anders, Laurentius/Laurence/Lawrence/Lars, so there's a greater variety than many people who are not familiar with European names might think..). As for Chinese surnames I suggest you read the article I linked to, having 3,100 surnames currently in use says nothing about how frequent they are, as can be seen from the statistics I quoted, three surnames account for almost 25% of all Han Chinese, and 100 surnames account for 87% of all Han Chinese (in Mainland China and Taiwan), leaving 15% for the other 3,000 surnames. Compared to in England where the three most common surnames together account for a measly 2.6% of the population, and the 20 most common surnames together account for less than 8% of the population (see List of most common surnames in Europe). Almost all "Western" people also have more than one given name, making it even easier to tell people apart (John A. Doe, John B. Doe, John C. Doe etc...), and nicknames used by family and friends are very common, with all probability at least as common as among Chinese. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Peter is still a derived name. It does not have a meaning in English. It is an Anglicized form or variant of a Biblical Hebrew name, and this name is circulated around in the population. Jewish families and Chinese families often give their children names in their own language - Hebrew or Chinese. My original question was about the form of the name being passed down or transliterated, but not the meaning (translated). 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter is not "an Anglicized form or variant of a Biblical Hebrew name", but rather derives from a Greek origin having nothing to do with Hebrew. 185.27.105.184 (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Greek translation of the Aramaic Cephas though - was anybody ever named "rock" in Greek before that? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an example of what I'm asking. Why certain languages take a transliteration instead of translation? Why does the translation process stop in Greek? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, that when people know the original meaning, they tend to translate, but when they don't know it, they tend to transliterate. I also believe that people take aesthetic considerations as well: When they like the sound of the original name, they may prefer transliteration to translation. There may be also religious considerations, or cultural ones, so that more conservative people would prefer the original name (by transliterating it). HOTmag (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cephas is Latin. In Aramaic, it's not Cephas, but rather ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐ, i.e. /kefa/. HOTmag (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your contributions and finding that all you ever do here on Wikipedia is asking questions at the "Reference desk", questions that in many cases are at least borderline trolling, I have decided to not spend more time on you, so if my answer wasn't to your liking I suggest you use "Google" to find more information elsewhere. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way. You have the right to decline answering the inquiry. I feel that I have not expressed myself very clearly, and don't know how to express my actual question very clearly, so I'm just going to let go of this question. Even in real life, I may ask a question, and some people will give an answer. In my head, I would be like, "That's not what I said." Sometimes, I wonder if people really understand my words or if they are answering me based on what they think I'm asking. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given names necessarily reflect the choice of the parents, so this provides some indication of their attitude toward both ancestry and surrounding culture. For the latter, you can search on the web _popular_given_names_ for a particular country and year - for the USA, the basic data comes from the Social Security Administration website. See also the WP pages List of most popular given names and List of most popular given names by state in the United States. For recent births, consider the impact of global culture. When my Hebrew-named, Israeli-born daughters visit my birthplace, America, where there are few Hebrew-speakers even among Jews, their names are perhaps recognized as feminine for ending in "-ah" but their meanings and significance are wholly inscrutable. Back in Israel, any Hebrew-speaker will identify a given name as biblical or religious vs. sourced in nature, geography, history/literature, trendy, or unique - likewise the practice in recent decades of unisex names or giving typically male names to female children (but not the reverse). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was not really clear, but I'm sure you meant to ask "When foreign names are converted to English, why is the name form kept while the meaning is not translated?" First, we are generally not interested in the meaning, but in the person's identity. The English approximation of the name is important, not the meaning. Once a foreigner has an official English name, he can then ask his friends to call him whatever he likes ... Mr. Swamp-East Mao perhaps. But Mr. Mao (or Mr. Hair) probably would not like to be called Swamp-East in English.

As for Native American names, their naming conventions are quite different from English names. Native Americans have numerous given names in their lifetime, including one or more secret names that is only shared with their medicine man, but they do not have surnames at all. The Bureau of Indian Affairs forced Native Americans to invent and adopt surnames for the purpose of identity, and since they had no sense of surnames, they made up rather odd names based on relationships (his-grandson, their-child, etc.), or a physical defect (tall-man, big-nose, yellow-woman, and so on), or a vocation (gambler, farrier, silversmith, and so on), but usually in their respective language. Then the BIA prohibited the use of diacritics or anything that would be difficult for a European-American to spell and pronounce, so their names were written in ways that made them hard to identify as meaningful in their native language, such as Begay (Navajo name, more properly wikt:biyeʼ, "his son"). After a couple of generations, the family forgets the meaning (since a name like wikt:Begay is not recognizably Navajo anymore) and just automatically gives their name as Begay. If you ask them what Begay means, they often don't know. By this time, the family is giving their children common English names (although the choices may be different from the names preferred by European-Americans because culture keeps the groups apart). —Stephen (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not just English, but various European languages. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it a current cultural norm that names be bestowed qua name and recognized as such, rather than a meaningful common noun (Angel, Rainbow, Summer, River...) or celebrating a characteristic (Prudence, Chastity...). -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a new trend, consider Cotton Mather.--Jayron 32 17:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The epitome of Puritan naming was supposedly "Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebone" and his son "Nicholas If-Christ-had-not-died-for-thee-thou-hadst-been-damned Barebone", though they go by the tamer monikers of Praise-God Barebone and Nicholas Barbon on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my favourite is Flie-fornication Andrews (poor child). Some other example here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In many languages, including members of every Indo-European branch except Italic (I suspect the Romans inherited their naming practices from the Etruscans), a pattern analogous to that of Chinese was formerly common: new compounds of two roots, from a set traditionally recognized as name-elements, siblings typically sharing one or the other. (Some roots persisted in use after their meanings were forgotten.) But the Christian Church preferred to baptize everyone with saints' names. —Tamfang (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]