Language desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 3

Mo(i)ses

Why does the name of Moses have oi in some languages? --Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was Μωϋσης in ancient Greek. AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a wiktionary entry here... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why was it thus in Ancient Greek? DuncanHill (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Yiddish it's usually spelled Moishe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Yiddish orthography, the spelling is משה‎, which does not suggest a diphthong. Given the pronunciation, one would expect something like מאוישעה‎. I don't know of an explanation for how an /ɔɪ/ crept into what in Hebrew is pronounced /moˈʃe/ (מֹשֶׁה⁩‎), with a monophthong. It is not plausible that this derived from philological considerations of Egyptian names. --Lambiam 11:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Yiddish equivalent to German "Oh Weh" is "Oy Vey", so couldn't it be some internal phonetic developments? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations which may or may not be relevant:

The Ashkenazi pronunciation of Hebrew that my father grew up with (though I didn't) renders וֹ /o/ as the diphthong /aʊ/
Yiddish regularly has /ɔɪ/ corresponding to German /aʊ/.

I don't know enough Yiddish to be able to think of any other Yiddish words from Hebrew with a וֹ in the first syllable (there are some where it is in the plural suffix וֹת "oṯ", but they're usually reduced to /-əs/), to tell whether this is a wider phenomenon. ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I live and learn. Until today, I didn't even know that monophthong was a phthing.-- Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Yiddish accent renders the "o" vowel as "oi" in general. For example, Kadosh (holy) is rendered as Kadoish or sometimes Koidesh. 64.231.206.241 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying, Bugs, that Ancient Greek took it from Yiddish? —Tamfang (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek version of the name is based on Hebrew, but not necessarily the Hebrew pronunciation as we know it. The Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible are much earlier than the use of vowel points in Hebrew. --Amble (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was made in Egypt; and first-century Jewish scholars Josephus and Philo of Alexandria connected the name of Moses with the Egyptian / Coptic word for water, "mou" (μωυ) [1]. Perhaps that understanding of the meaning of the name "Moses" influenced its spelling in Greek by Greek-speaking Jews living in Egypt. --Amble (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Tribe of Levites (to which Moses putatively belonged), as portrayed in the Pentateuch/Torah, alone featured Egyptian-style names, unlike the other Tribes whose names were characteristically Canaanite.

This might reflect an origin of the Israelites as an amalgamation of more than a dozen previously separate tribes (different ancient sources include between them more than twelve names), including one from a southerly, Egyptian-speaking, possibly Yahweh-worshipping region. The idea that these 12(+) tribes were descendants of the so-named twelve sons of Jacob/Israel is a typical founding myth also found elsewhere (see Twelve Tribes of Israel#Historicity).

'–Moses' is Egyptian, but incomplete, meaning "born of . . ." usually coupled with a God's name. If it ever reflected a real name, this was probably elided to prevent the embarrassment of having the main prophet of one religion being named for the god of another. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.44.161 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right on the monotheism! 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing phrase in 1984

I'm having trouble understanding this phrase from 1984:

"Unquestionably Syme will be vaporized, Winston thought again. He thought it with a kind of sadness, although well knowing that Syme despised him and slightly disliked him [...]"

I thought that despising someone entailed a strong disliking for them. Am I missing something, or is this an error in the text? 150.203.2.195 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no error in the text. See this webpage, which states (correctly, I think) that the two words don't necessarily mean the same thing. To me, "despise" is about hating what someone stands for, in political or social terms, whereas "dislike" is more of a personal thing. --Viennese Waltz 09:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or else Syme is just practicing doublethink. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is that. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To express that I find someone's opinions repugnant, I wouldn't say that I despise them. To me, that implies that my loathing extends to the person. To avoid that, I'd say that I despise the opinions that I find offensive. Words do not have crisp definitions, so we should allow some leeway, but I for one also find Orwell's formulation, if not puzzling, at least somewhat peculiar. --Lambiam 10:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the slight dislike was Winston's feeling, not Syme's. It would make more sense that way (although the phrasing should then have been "slightly disliking"). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, to despise someone means to evaluate them as worthless. This seems to me a different dimension from like-dislike. While it's unlikely that anybody would like somebody they despise, it doesn't imply that they dislike them strongly. ColinFine (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further: I myself have a friend whom I slightly despise (for some of his behavior) but nevertheless somewhat like (because of his overall qualities). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.127.56.230 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OED gives for despise - "To look down upon; to view with contempt; to think scornfully or slightingly of" and one can certainly look down upon someone yet still like them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around that, Duncan. I might despise someone's actions or attitudes, yet still like/love them personally. Parents (who, one hopes, love their children unconditionally) deal with this situation all the time, when it comes to the wicked stuff their children get up to. But to despise them seems to exclude any notions of liking or loving them. Can you give me an example? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not without violating Wikipedia policy. But surely there have been people in your life who you've looked down upon but still rather liked? DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GBS gives several hits for the collocation "lovable nincompoop",^[2] one of which is from the other GBS. --Lambiam 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but I would say I have mixed feelings about them. And if I despised some of their actions and disliked them more generally, I probably wouldn't split hairs. The apologists here are using examples of positive/negative combinations, but both of the emotions expressed in the example are negative which is what makes it curious. I tend to believe that doublethink was the correct answer. Matt Deres (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Lovable nincompoop/idiot/lunatic/fool" is something I might well apply to someone. Without the "lovable", the noun could suggest I despise them, but the adjective puts that to rest. Maybe I'm at odds with the rest of the world here, but for me, to despise someone means I most definitely do not like them, and I would do all in my power to avoid having anything to do with them. Luckily for the world, there's nobody that fits that category, so I have nil experience of this. If I like someone, that means that I have overcome whatever negative behaviours they may have evinced (if any), and while I may not like or condone those behaviours, I still like them personally and i certainly don't despise them.-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of words is subject to drift. An egregious example is the word egregious, which originally meant "outstanding" (in a good way!). It has retained this positive sense in Italian egregio. The word despise may also be drifting to an emotionally more exclusively negative sense. Webster's 1830 dictionary gives two distinguished senses:

DE-SPISE′, v. t. 1. To contemn ; to scorn ; to disdain ; to have the lowest opinion of. 2. To abhor. Shak.

--Lambiam 23:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The negative sense is very strong in the related adjective despicable. If I despise someone, it means I look down on them, not because I have a higher status, not because I am better educated, but because I consider them despicable lowlifes. My scorn is in fact immensely more likely to be directed toward high-status individuals. --Lambiam 00:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the discussion so far has ignored the creativity of the word and phrase choices of the author, who is trying to convey the increasingly confused thought processes of Winston Smith, humiliated, tortured and abused at this point of the plot. Great authors do not write in the V/NPOV/OR style of competent Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the context, the term is not part of Smith's thought but used by the omniscient narrator as part a factual statement informing the reader about Smith's state of mind while having a particular thought. To tell their readers that their character John is a terrible stutterer, great authors wouldn't write, "John was a t-t-t-terrible stut-tut-tutterer". --Lambiam 11:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]