Language desk
< April 17	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 19 >

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.

April 18[edit]

Graduating[edit]

Ok, I've always thought the proper way to say that someone has completed their schooling at a particular institution was to say that they had "graduated from" whatever school they had attended. Lately, I've been noticing that people say and write that someone has "graduated highschool" or "graduated college" or whatever. To me, graduating something, like a beaker, involves putting tickmarks down the side of it so you can measure the volume of whatever you put in it. My question is: which is more correct, to graduate from something or to simply graduate it? Thanks 208.65.223.146 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 'from', but there is an increasing tendency to drop this preposition and just say 'graduated high-school'. I lived in Japan for ten years, and I found a lot of Americans using it like this. One bizarre usage that I can't get my head round is that they also said 'graduated kindergarten', which is just comical.--KageTora (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone "graduated (from) kindergarten" isn't nearly as comical as actually holding a graduation ceremony for those leaving kindergarten, but alas that happens all too often. —An gr 08:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct by whose standard? In British usage, you don't graduate anything, or from anything: 'graduate' means 'take a degree', and you do that from a University or equivalent institution.

This observation is of course not directly germane to your question, but points up that your question presupposes that there is an answer to 'which is more correct', or indeed that 'correct' is meaningful in this context. The fact is that many people referring to American and other educational systems do say 'graduate <name of institution>'. Some will avoid this construction, or will use it in speech but not in writing; some will no doubt judge you if you use it; but 'correct' makes sense only if there is some ultimate authority, which there is not. See Linguistic prescription. --ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, the use of "graduate" without "from" has been cited as an error by usage commentators dating back to 1957. The guide also notes that some older critics argued that "graduated" should only be used transitively, as in "he was graduated from college," but disagrees with this view. John M Baker (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's about as close to an ultimate authority as we're going to get. Thanks! 208.65.223.146 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Question[edit]

I am moving to Korea in a few weeks and I would like to know if my nickname (which is actually 'Kage' - pronounced as it would be in Latin or Japanese, or whatever) would mean something in Korean. I don't want to be walking around with everyone calling me 'pumpkin-head' or something silly. Can anyone inform me if 'kage' has a meaning in Korean?--KageTora (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah actually your name does mean something. It sounds the same as the very common word "가게" (shop, store). There are also some rarer words that sound the same as well -가계 which could be "(family) lineage" or "household/family expenses". I'm not certain but I think these two are just homophonic words, not different definitions of the same word. Anyways, as you might guess those ones are much rarer. The one meaning store however is the most common word used for a store, so I think you should probably pick a different Korean name. --66.188.129.61 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I thought as much. My nickname is Japanese 'kagetora' which means 'shadow tiger', so how would that be in Korean?--KageTora (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Korean people say "가게" it will sound like "Kage" to your ears (assuming you speak English/Japanese but not Korean), but when you say "Kage" it will sound like "카게" to Koreans. Consequently, I can assure you that people won't be confusing your name with "shop/lineage/household-expense". Shadow Tiger will be something like 그림자 호랑이 geu-rim-ja ho-rang-i but that's a bit long. "Geu" is pronounced a bit like Japanese "gu", but the lips are not compressed, and the lips are not rounded. --Kjoonlee 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could go with 영호 (影虎) yeong-ho, where yeong sounds like "young" and ho sounds like Japanese "ho". --Kjoonlee 14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the name 영호 that Kyoonlee proposed. This both sounds like a Korean name, has the original meaning you wanted, and doesn't have the potential to be confused. I do think that "Kage" could be confused-- If the K is pronounced as it would be in Japanese, my understanding is that Japanese ks are mildly aspirated (and not heavily aspirated like ㅋ). Our VOT article Voice onset time even places them into the tenuis category (unaspirated - which would mean it would be easily confused).--66.188.129.61 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okeedokee, I will use that! Thanks!--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with Latin translation[edit]

A recent edit to the article Galileo affair added the following unsourced quotation, allegedly penned by Galileo in a letter to Kepler:

"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

A google search establishes that the quotation was given (again without a specific source) by Giorgio de Santillana in The Crime of Galileo—which would appear to pass Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources with flying colours. But a search for the source in Antonio Favaro's Edizione Nazionale of Galileo's works seems to indicate it was a letter dated August 19, 1610, with the relevant Latin text being:

"Volo, mi Keplere, ut rideamus insignem vulgi stultitiam. Quid dices de primariis huius Gimnasii philosophis, qui, aspidis pertinacia repleti, nunquam, licet me ultro dedita opera millies offerente, nec Planetas, nec

, nec perspicillum, videre voluerunt? Verum ut ille aures, sic isti oculos, contra veritatis lucem obturarunt."

I have substituted the word "lunam" in the text for a little picture of a crescent moon, which is what actually appears in Favaro's transcription—and presumably also in the original—of the manuscript. My schoolboy Latin is now so rusty that I would barely be able to tell my ablative from my pluperfect subjunctive, and my lessons only covered classical Latin anyway, not any mediæval or renaissance Latin. Nevertheless it appears to me that the above English quotation is an extremely loose translation of the Latin. I can't see anything at all in the latter that would appear to be translatable into "or shall we cry", for instance. Can anyone provide an accurate translation?
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could laugh at the remarkable foolishness of the public. What would you say about the principal scholars of this academy, who, although I have gone out of my way to offer a thousand times, with the pertinancity of the adder have wanted to see neither the planets nor the moon nor the telescope? Truly, as it [i.e., the adder] stops its ears, so they their eyes, against the light of truth." The allusion to the "aspis" is to Psalms 57:5 (in the Vulgate; 58:4 in the King James Version): ""Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear." (I suppose that it would be OR to use my translation in the article; there must be a more accurate one out there in a reliable source, though. It seems a notable enough passage that there would be.) Deor (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" I want, my Kepler, that we laugh at the enormous stupidity of people. What do you say about the main philosophers of this Gymnasium, who, full of the obstinacy of the serpent, never wanted to see the Planets, the Moon, the telescope, although I was offering facts, expressly for them, for a thousand times. Really, they closed their eyes against the truth in the same way as that one closed his ears" .

"Aspidis pertinacia" clearly refers to Psalms 57.5 "furor eorum sicut furor serpentis sicut reguli surdi obturantis aurem suam", as also the subsequent verb suggests. If you remember it [1], it means that Galileo was quite enough pissed off. Then maybe this "obturarunt aures" reminded Galileo of Odysseus and the episode of the Sirens: few lines below, in the letter, there is an ironic reference to the AEneid and the Odyssey (the idea is: "these guys think to read the book of Nature as they read classic texts"). --pma (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that PMajer and I were apparently working on this simultaneously. I had the edit window open for a goodish time, while I consulted my Bibles and such (and I'm a very slow typist), but for some reason the WP software put my response above his/hers, with no edit conflict, despite the time stamps. Deor (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's an intelligent software, your translation is nicer! ;-) --pma (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Many thanks to you both. Even with my rusty schoolboy Latin and a pocket dictionary I did manage to get the first two sentences pretty much right (but without any real certainty that I had done so). I went a little astray in the third sentence, giving both the eyes and the ears to the philosophers instead of only the former to the philosophers and the latter to the asp.

The section of the verifiability policy on non-English sources seems to indicate that an editor's own translations of foreign-language sources are acceptable if there is none available in any reliable source. The problem here, of course, is that by Wikipedia's criteria, de Santillana's book is a reliable source. Nevertheless, his translation is so poor that if I can't find a better source, I would be inclined to replace it with a composite of those you have provided. On the whole, I think Deor's version reads a little smoother, but I prefer pma's placement of the clause "although I have ... etc." at the end of the second sentence, and also the way he has cast the third sentence. What do you both think of the following version:

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable foolishness of the public. What do you have to say about the principal scholars of this academy who are fully as obstinate as an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have gone out of my way to offer them the opportunity a thousand times? Indeed, just as the latter stops its ears, so do the former shut their eyes to the light of truth."

I realise it is somewhat less literal than either of your translations. I am trying to produce a version in more idiomatic English (but hopefully without departing too much from the proper meaning).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Ultro probably means something like "voluntarily" here, and dedita opera means "designedly," which I sort of smushed together in "gone out of my way to," but your translation reads well and doesn't distort the meaning. I'd say go with it. (I say this, however, as one who unashamedly provided his own translation of two lines from Alexander of Villedieu in an article I wrote (Maximianus (poet)) because I simply don't know whether an English translation of the Doctrinale exists.) Deor (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too (of course, I'm not the right person to judge the English; I made it as literal as I could, leaving to you the task of giving it a proper final form). I agree about ultro and dedita opera. I was a bit embarassed about how to return volo ut rideamus in English. That subjunctive is certainly more exhortative ("let's laugh/we should laugh") than optative ("I wish we were in a position to laugh"); but "let's laugh" is maybe too confidential. Here volo ut has also a nuance of optative due to a courtesy form, so "I wish" sounds very appropriate. --pma (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm only lurking here, I just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoy reading a congenial collaboration such as this. Volo ut hic videamus plurem talis harmoniae. — Sebastian 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sister's hobby (in Chinese)[edit]

How would I correctly say "My older sister's hobby is fighting with me" in Chinese? I can only come up with "Wo de jie jie aihao shi ...... wo" --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wo3 jie3 jie1 de4 ai4 hao4 shi4 gen1 wo3 da3 jia4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.233 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostexorcist, your request is pretty hard to translate. I'm pretty sure you're trying to make a joke, or to refer humorously (or graphically) to your sister's behavior. The translation you and the other person provided are literal. However, I'm not sure if this is how a native speaker would say it--they would get the basic jist of what you were saying, but it would probably feel awkward. I'm not a native speaker, but I've got a decent background in Mandarin and I'm afraid a native speaker might simply say something like, "My sister fights with me constantly," (Wo jiejie tian tian gen wo da jia -- Wo jiejie bu duan de gen wo da jia.) or "My sister loves [likes] to fight with me" (Wo jiejie zui yuanyi gen wo da jia -- Wo jiejie tebie xihuan gen wo da jia). --71.111.230.71 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience I would say making jokes when you are learning a language is likely to lead to embarrassment or offence and is best treated with caution. Richard Avery (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking this way to serious Richard. My Chinese class is very informal. I've served in the military, so I know there is a time for jokes and a time for seriousness. I'm not going to be cracking jokes to the wrong people. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spanish translation for Q-tip[edit]

how do you say q-tip in spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of good answers are provided here. The short answer, if you can't read the Spanish in that thread, is, there's a wide variety of terms, depending on location and such. Since it's a brand name, one "translation" is just Q-tip (my guess is this would be most likely to be used and understood by Spanish-speakers in the US). Other Spanish brand-names are used in some places, like Curitas and Cotenetes, and other terms are hisopo, aplicador, and bastoncillo de algodón --Miskwito (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The brand name is actually ~~"Qtips"~~. For legal reasons they want you to use it as an adjective and say "Qtips cotton swab" to refer to one of them. Of course nobody does. --Anonymous, 05:25 UTC, April 19, 2009.

No, it's "Q-tips". The dash is there. Or hypen. Or whatever. --13:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. "Q-tips". Sorry. Anyway, my point was that the S is there too. --Anon, 19:11 UTC, April 19.

clear and deep understanding the problem?[edit]

the person who has made the remark has a clear and deep understanding the problem.

The fragment is from an [2] English Language Column in a news paper. My instinct says there should be a preposition (of) before the problem. What do you think? --Sundardas (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would probably be better without the first 'has', too. Algebraist 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like nothing more than a typo. It is very unlikely that he or she would have left out the "of" in speech. The "of" is absolutely required because 1) there is the article "a" (a clear and deep understanding) and 2) the idiom (the person...has...understanding) requires "of." Note that "understanding" can take the direct object "the problem" in some other types of sentences, such as "His understanding the problem did not help him succeed," although "his understanding of the problem did not help him succeed" is also possible. The first version (without the "of") is analogous with "His reading the book did not help him succeed." It is not possible to write, "An understanding the problem did not help him succeed," but the sentence would be grammatically correct as "An understanding of the problem did not help him succeed."75.89.29.255 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"His understanding the problem ... " has no relevance to this question whatever. It is a different construction, in which 'understanding' has a different meaning ('the act or fact of understanding' as opposed to 'what is understood'). --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]