Language desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

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.

February 8[edit]

Latin phrases in WP Occam article[edit]

The following par is quoted by a WP editor of Occam's Razor article (in History subsection.) Of the three Latin phrases within the excerpt, only one has been translated.

William Ockham (c. 1285–1349) is remembered … [for the] maxim attributed to him and known as Occam's razor Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, which occurs in his theological work on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K). In his Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. — Thorburn, 1918, pp. 352-3; Kneale and Kneale, 1962, p. 243.

My schoolboy Latin has deserted me, so if you have some left, and an interest in analytical philosophy, perhaps you could translate these so that I can emend the article with interpolated translation. Myles325a (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I translate "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate" as "Pluralities are never put forward without necessity". "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" is "It is folly to do with many what can be done with fewer." Now they need a bit of better style in translation, which I'm not great at. Steewi (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP myles325a back. Thanks a lot Steewi (and I see you're an Aussie too like me! Makes sense as we're both up and about when much of the world is sleeping.) Your translations sound great, and I would only amend the first to read "Pluralities are never [to be] put forward without necessity", as the words are intended as a prescription rather than a statement. Now that I look at it again, I am a little confused as to what distinction is to be made between the three versions of the Principle given here. To discriminate between them seems like a quibble. Myles325a (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue is simply that Ockham himself never used the specific phrasing of the modern Ockham's Razor. Instead he is one of the earliest to propose the concept. When it comes down to it, you're probably right that they're more or less saying the same thing, but the modern Ockham's Razor is the more general and simplest of the lot (in following with his own principle). Steewi (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Ahem...]

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.

Pluralitas is singular, and ponenda is a gerundive. Therefore the better translation is:

A plurality is never to be proposed without necessity.

(Let us not needlessly propose a plurality of pluralities!) As for this one:

Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.

Frustra is more like "without reason, to no good end, futile". It is not quite the same as "foolish". And plura means "with more", not "with many" (which would have used a form of multus). So:

It is futile to do with more what can be done with less.

(Such is the advice from yet another Austral pedant.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the differences. Thanks for the corrections, Noetica. I'm heading back to my Latin grammars. Maybe I should ahve actually taken a class. Steewi (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaction[edit]

My MS Word thesaurus gives the following as synonyms to inaction: in force, working, functional, effective, and a few more. These can't be correct, can they? For one, inaction is a noun while the alleged synonyms are adjectives. HYENASTE 04:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the reference program is reading "inaction" as "in action". Curious that.៛ Bielle (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Reminder: Inaction is conspiracy, report all suspicious activity to your local Civil Protection Team. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation Marks, Again[edit]

WP:MOS says:

Correct: Martha asked, "Are you coming?" (When quoting a question, the question mark belongs inside because the quoted text itself was a question.) Personlly, I would have been tempted to also add a period (full stop) after the closing quotation marks, but MOS says "No" to that.

Correct: Did Martha say, "Come with me"? (The very quote is being questioned, so here, the question mark is correctly outside; the period in the original quote is omitted.)

That's all very good, but, what does one do if the quoted material and the contextual material are both questions?

Is Did Martha say, "Are you coming?" correct? (And there, quite by accident, is a triple question and do I have the puctuation correct for that triple, too?) ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both your double and triple questions are puntuated correctly. The quote's question mark takes precedence over that of the sentence, and it is unnecessary to duplicate them. However, if the sentence requires a different, but equal punctuation mark, then it is customary to use both. eg. Did Martha declare, "You are coming!"? or Unbelievably, Martha asked, "Are you coming?"! Gwinva (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With amazing speed, Gwinva answered Bielle's question, "Is it ok to say, 'Unbelievably, Martha asked, "Are you coming ?"!'?"! Multiple punctuation marks are kinda awesome. HYENASTE 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyenaste, do you often write sentences such as 'With amazing speed, Gwinva answered Bielle's question, "Is it ok to say, 'Unbelievably, Martha asked, "Are you coming ?"!'?"!'? Gwinva (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would be surprised how often I write sentences such as, "Hyenaste, do you often [...] Are you coming ?"!'?"!'?"! :P But seriously, with question marks and exclamation marks equal, is that an appropriate construction, for future reference? HYENASTE 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends what you mean by 'appropriate'. It would be technically correct to continue in such a manner, but it would constitute poor style, and one would be better off constructing a sentence which did not require the stack of quotations and punctuation marks. Hynaste frequently wrote sentences regarding Gwinva's speed at answering questions; most notably, Gwinva responded promptly to Bielle's query regarding the construction: "Unbelievably, Martha asked, 'Are you coming?'!". Although even that is clumsy, and could be improved. Gwinva (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been entertaining and, I think, informative. Thank you all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. at least, it'd be more common to see #2 (or any sentence following the pattern of these) with the punctuation inside the quotation marks. I believe this a fairly major point of stylistic debate. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the American standards do differ from British/NZ/Australian standards regarding punctuation and quotation marks, and generally place punctuation within the quotes; I'm not sure how they would manage such complex examples we have above (especially regarding usage of both question and exclamation marks). But I shall render myself controversial by saying the American system is not so clear. Did Martha say, "Come with me"? and Did Martha say, "Come with me?" actually have different meanings. Gwinva (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I actually agree that the American system is less clear. I do not use it on Wikipedia. However, I am forced to do so on my day job. The American system's lack of clarity, though, is confined to periods (full stops), semicolons, and commas. Other kinds of punctuation, such as the question mark, go outside the quotation marks unless they are actually part of the quote. So the American system actually would make the distinction Gwinva presents above. (One of the maddening things about our system is that not only is it sometimes ambiguous, it is also inconsistent!) Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, semicolons go outside the quotation marks in American usage (unless they're part of the quote). American usage puts only commas and periods inside quotation marks when they're not part of the quote. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why trailing commas go inside the quotes, though. It's not as if the comma was part of what was actually said; it's meant to separate the quoted words from whatever follows next in the sentence. Can some kind soul explain this to me? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an aesthetic decision. Commas and periods are very small and are right at the bottom of the line; quotation marks are also very small and are far away from the bottom the line. When I write Jack called Edna a "purple-haired bimbo". the period is dangling off in space with no other characters to lean on, but when I write Jack called Edna a "purple-haired bimbo." the period gets to snuggle up against the "o" so it's not so lonely. More assertive punctuation marks like colons, semicolons, exclamation points and question marks don't get so lonely, so it's okay to have them outside the quotation marks, e.g. Jack called Edna a "purple-haired bimbo"; her response was unprintable. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this answer from the alt.usage.english FAQ. -- BenRG (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for my assumption above that American usage for question marks followed the same rules as commas (although it was in response to that very suggestion). I understand your aesthetic argument, Angr, and it makes some sense, as does BenRG's link above, but I, personally, would choose accuracy over aesthetics. If my motivation was to write something aesthetically pleasing I would perhaps choose to construct my sentence another way. Furthermore, the aesthetic requirement is not standard in American usage. Belatedly consulting my only American source (Bill Walsh) I find he gives this example of correct usage: The actress, who had a bit part in the film version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?," died on Monday at age 97. Now that is a monstrosity. Gwinva (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

landing in spanish[edit]

how would you say landing in spanish, as in a landing. the ferry terminal type of landing. like were boats take off from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context? In English, a landing is a platform between two staircases, and a landing stage is a platform (usually a floating one) on which passengers from small boats can disembark. A ferry terminal is a quay, for which the Spanish is muelle.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boomgaylove means any place where boats tie up to load and unload. You see it in placenames like the fictional "Knot's Landing". (I get the feeling that the placename formula "X's Landing" is more common in the US than in the UK.) --Milkbreath (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best Spanish word for this kind of landing is embarcadero. Marco polo (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in Embarcadero. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Latin[edit]

What is the meaning of latores presentium? It appears to have a technical meaning. The context is a 13th century ecclesiastical letter. The phrase is used to describe the companions of a Franciscan friar. Aramgar (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to tell exactly without the context; but in medieval Latin pr(a)esens can mean "letter" or "document," so the expression might mean "bearers of documents" or something similar. Was the friar traveling with so much paperwork that he would have needed assistants to carry it all? Deor (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deor: Mystery solved. “bearers of letters” works very well in the context. If you are interested in the full letter, it may be found here. Thank you very much for the help. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written Okinawan[edit]

Before Japanese annexation of Okinawa, Okinawan was written in Shuri (the Shuri dialect). I was wondering since Okinwan now and past is phonlogically different from Japanese, what was the kana they used for their nonjapanese Shuri consants? (I was wondering both hiragana and katagana, even though katagana was hardly used).68.148.164.166 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ryukyuan languages#Writing system, in classical times Ryukyuan was written with a mix of Kanji and Hiragana, in contrast to Japanese which was written mostly with Kanji in formal contexts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you, but what would have been the frequency of the indiviual hiragana and katagana?68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of sounds it mentions as not having a standard representation, such as a glottal stop, plus there are a few older (now otherwise disused) hiragana that represent some of the other syllables, such as we, wi, ye, etc. Some modern sounds are written with standard hiragana/katakana but are read with non-standard pronunciation. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they disused?68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the standard Japanese language no longer uses those syllables. Some of them (I think) were never really used in official Japanese style, but were created somewhat ad hoc for dialects. Steewi (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Shuri is not Japanese in any way and any sense of the word.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See ゐ (wi) and ゑ (we) for some modern use. Steewi (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - Okinawan writing system seems to have a lot of the information you are after. It could do with a bit of clean up and expansion, though. Steewi (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving this question. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Russian?[edit]

Can this be translated to English using a knowledge of Russian? Amerikanski firma "Tranceptor Technology" pristupilok proizvostu computerow personalny sputnik. I can see that it's not written using the Russian alphabet, but if someone knows Russian and English they would still be able to translate it, assuming that it's not nonsense. ----Seans Potato Business 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snap, eh? :) This is slightly misspelled transliterated Russian, which can roughly be translated as "American company 'Tranceptor Technology' started producing 'personal sattellite' computers".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snap? I don't get it? But thanks :) ----Seans Potato Business 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, where did you get this line from then? The whole passage is an intro to Snap!'s The Power...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I didn't know whose song it was. I thought that you were referring to snap (game). ----Seans Potato Business 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you I just lost the Game. HYENASTE 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Russian doesn't use articles, when translating into English they should be added as required. Here I suggest "The American company Tranceptor Technology...". Also, it says at Sputnik program that the word Sputnik "means literally 'co-traveler', 'traveling companion', 'satellite'", so one of the other meanings might also be appropriate, depending on the original context. --Anonymous, 21:49 UTC, 2008-02-08.

Hmmm... Even allowing for (more than) slight misspellings, it's still very bad Russian, if it's Russian at all, and I'm wondering if it might not be a related language, such as Czech. The endings of "pristupilok" and "proizvostu" don't look like Russian endings to me. Or maybe the character who said it was deliberately supposed to be speaking bad Russian. Oh, wait, I see what's going on now; it's just a very bad transliteration. I agree with Ëzhiki's translation. The original Cyrillic was:

"Американская фирма Transceptor Technologies приступила к производству компьютеров «Персональный спутник»", of which a better transliteration would be:
"Amerikanskaya firma Transceptor Technologies pristupila k proizvodstvu komp'yuterov Personal'ny sputnik". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What it would/should translate into, PROPERLY as it were, is: 'The American company Transceptor Technologies has started production of the 'Personal Companion' computer.' The Personal Companion, made by Tranceptor Technologies of Ann Arbor, was a voice-controlled, computer-like device that could, among other things, download articles from USA Today. It also contained a clock, a calculator, a phone and several other useful items, all read/spoken out loud for the user. It was aimed at the blind and sight impaired market. 79.102.117.253 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It" in "It is impossible"[edit]

What does the "it" in sentences like "It is impossible" refer to? 124.181.26.71 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't refer to anything; it's a syntactic expletive, specifically a dummy pronoun. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this case it might well refer to a clause that is still to follow, e.g. It is impossible to tell which of them was right. In this sentence, to tell which of them was right is the "real" or "logical" subject. It anticipates that subject, and is sometimes called the "anticipatory subject" – but then, terminology tends to vary.

Similarly, it may constitute an anticipatory object in sentences such as We take it for granted that you'll eat your hat.

Cases where it does not refer to anything at all, semantically, mostly concern either time or the weather: It is five o'clock / the Ides of March, or It is cold in here / raining. This is sometimes called "empty it". Bessel Dekker (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complete the set, "it" may also be a perfectly ordinary subject. "The task is not easy. It is impossible." But that's obviously not the construction the original poster was asking about. --Anon, 23:59 UTC, 2008-02-08.

Ah. If you really want to complete the "set" of syntactic uses of it (as a subject, that is), be careful. You would have to include it in cleft sentences, and this might be termed focal it (It was Jimmy who sent the poor sod to Coventry / It was the poor sod Jimmy sent to Conventry / It was Coventry Jimmy sent the poor sod to.) Even so, I doubt whether the list would be quite exhaustive then. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "...not the construction the original poster was asking about"? The "it" can also refer to the subject which was mentioned in earlier. In the example: "Can you win the game now?", "It is impossible", the "it" refers to the subject of the previous question ie. winning the game. 87.114.18.114 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because in that case it's obvious what "it" refers to, so nobody would be asking. --Anon, 08:05 UTC, Feb. 11.