Language desk
< January 7	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 8

19th-century English "Of an afternoon"

I've come accross the following sentence in a 19th-century manuscript:"Of an afternoon, the regimental bands perform here, at which time the Alameda is alive with the fashion of Gibraltar and with specimens of all the divers phases of humanity which are congregated within its gates." I put a comma after "Of an afternoon" interpreting it to mean "on any given afternoon," but am not sure of it's true meaning. Is this colloquial, or is it good 19th-century English? The Century Dictionary did not give any information on the matter under "afternoon." LShecut2nd (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is fine - and it's perfectly good 21st Century English in this house! DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good in this one too, you may be interested in the wikitionary entry. Foxhill (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Middle-Atlantic American take) "Of an afternoon" (or evening, morning, or day of the week) is in my passive vocabulary. It is plain English, and we understand it perfectly well, but we don't say that around here so much. We use "evenings"/"in the evening" or "Sundays"/"on Sunday" for that. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary's 17th definition for the preposition of reads: "(dated) frequently happening at (a specified time)". As an example, it shows: "Often, of an evening, we'd hear the sirens." Pallida Mors 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Sundayacception has aception[reply]

Chinese sign

What would be a more accurate translation of this sign? Neon Merlin 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ""storage accessories".--K.C. Tang (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how did they get "those supplies" out of that? —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "Chenglish" signs so popular on YouTube are nothing more than word-for-word or character-for-character translations of English phrases; I don't find them particularly funny, but I suspect that sometimes people make them intentionally in a mischievous frame of mind (because why not, as the English-speaking people are so fond of them...) In this particular case, I've no idea why it's "those supplies", perhaps it's not a translation at all. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the photographs at engrish.com are all genuine, though. Some I find funnier than others. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photos are genuine, but I suspect sometimes the "translators" of those signs do that just for fun ... who knows--K.C. Tang (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Angr. 让思想冲破牢笼, as the Chinese version of the Internationale has it: "And let the mind burst free from its prison cell." Strangely, it is language that enchains us, and keeps us in solitary confinement. Voltaire tells us that "les paroles sont faites pour cacher nos pensées" (attributed also to others); and the Chinese will tell us only what they want us to know. I saw, in a supermarket in Nanjing, these three English signs in the aisle: "Swelled food", "Daily necessities", and "Living creatures". The wording may be slightly wrong; I must look up my photograph.

Here is some "swelled food" (膨化食品).

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hernando Colon / family crest

I find various recordings of the words on the family crest that appears on the son of Christopher Columbus, Hernando Colon. The tomb is in the Cathedral of Seville. I find "A Castilla y a Leon Mundo nuebo dio Colon" - space between "y" and "a," no accents, "b" instead of "v" in nuevo. The alternate form is: "À Castilla ya Leon Mundo nuevo diò Colon." Since I wasn't able to find a photograph of the legend, do any of you know exactly how it is written? LShecut2nd (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there was a lot of spelling variation in the 16th century. If you could find an original grant of arms, that would establish the official spelling at that time (which might not be identical with current standard Spanish spelling)... 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, where did the phrase "to the table" become popular?

Hello, where did the phrase "to the table" become popular? I hear it all the time. Thanks,198.88.216.104 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Martin[reply]

It's not much of a phrase. What sort of table? In what context? Do you mean to the negotiating table? Or the table in the House of Commons where MPs are sworn in? Or gamblers coming to a card table? Bringing food to the dinner table?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think our anonymous friend means as in "He brings a lot of skills 'to the table'", meaning that his skills will be valuable in the team effort. The basic form is "to bring X to the table." What table? We can only guess. I'd always imagined it was the dinner table, and everyone partook. The OED has a "draft addition" from March 2006 on the phrase, showing the ealiest citation in 1914. It provides several examples throughout the twentieth century wherein the table seems to be construed as a "bargaining table", but in the 1914 citation and others it is not. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

I would like to find out what the origin and the definition of the origin of the word 'cultivation' Pooopie (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:cultivate:

  1. to grow plants
  2. to nurture; tend
  3. To turn or stir soil in preparation for planting.

1620, from Medieval Latin. cultivatus, past participle. of cultivare, from Late Latin cultivus "tilled," from Latin cultus (see cult). Figurative sense of "improve by training or education" is from 1681. Online etymology dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.25.53 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can go further within Latin and trace cultus to the perfect participle of the verb colere. AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a terribly low proficiency for languages

I can learn to read another language well enough but I have difficulty learning to speak. I've noticed that I have extreme difficulty remembering a foreign word and repeating it. Have ppl like me been studied? I also have extreme difficulty figuring out how to pronounce unfamiliar words in English. Are these deficiencies related?

66.91.224.203 (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These things are difficult for most people the first time around, maybe more so for you. The key is practice. The more you speak the language, the easier it gets. Clearly, you are remembering the meanings of words if you can read the language. It is a matter of activating that memory for speech through practice. As for unfamiliar words in English, it is no wonder that you have trouble deducing their pronunciation, because spelling in English is no clear guide to pronunciation. Here, your best bet is to consult a dictionary, learn how to read its pronunciation guides, and practice the pronunciation given in the dictionary. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should post your question in the Science category. Brains are as varied as fingerprints. The MRI of the brain processing language has been studied. We are gifted in some areas and deficient in others. Were you a late-talker? I was and find, at times, English very difficult to enunciate. When I studied French, my English vowels became corrupted, not to mention my spelling. It is to be remembered that nouns are names. Do you have difficulty in remembering a person's name, especially a co-worker? Short of dyslexia, your mental processes may just be variant. Nothing to fret about. I have a friend who can work with very difficult calculations, but can not run. LShecut2nd (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the use of mnemonics can help you memorize new words. When you master them, your recall sky-rockets. --Taraborn (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

カイダー字 or カイダーディー

In the 2nd paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyuan_languages#Writing_system, it says:

In Yonaguni island in particular, there was a different writing system called kaidādī (カイダー字 or カイダーディー). [1] [2]

I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to give me examples. Thanks!75.155.88.113 (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] Bendono (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in the way of a full list of all the charcters in the writing system? Thanks.75.155.88.113 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Could you provide translations to your links? Is there anything in the way of a full list of all the charcters in the writing system? Thanks.75.155.88.113 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's error?

I am working on a 19th-century manuscript in which the author, Frederick Hubbard, wrote: "The fortifications were of great strength, and when the Christian army first approached them, were so ably and desperately defended, that even the victorious Ferdinand was compelled to retire from the siege. No valour however could avail them whom fate had already sealed. The Cross of Santiago at length prevailed." Should the pentultimate sentence be "No valour however (great) could avail them whose fate had already been sealed"? Or should it be: "No valour, however, could avail them whom Fate had already sealed"? Is a fate sealed, or does Fate seal? LShecut2nd (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ask hard questions. "Seal (someone's) fate" had not yet ossified in the 19th century. The OED has a citation from Shelley, "Fate, envious Fate, has sealed my wayward destiny", that has Fate doing the sealing. Sure, "destiny" is like fate, but we wouldn't put it like that nowadays. "Seal" here means, of course, to put a seal on in the sense of a stamp or imprint. Another citation (1865) is closer to your example: "God, who had sealed that [Abraham's] family for himself." Hubbard might well have meant that Fate had marked the town for defeat, but I, too, expected a capital "f". --Milkbreath (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is poorly written, I must say. The phrase "when the Christian army first approached them" is parenthetical, so the "and" should go before the comma after "strength", not after it, because it leads directly to "were so ably .." The "however" query is ambiguous: either of your alternatives is possible, but if I were a betting man I'd say the author meant to have commas before and after "however". Fate doesn't seal; one's fate is sealed, or something seals one's fate, but fate does not seal. So the whole sentence would ideally have been "No valour, however, could avail them whose fate had already been sealed". Not that there's any point in changing published words, of course ... unless they're not actually published yet, if you get my drift. (Oh, it's penultimate, btw). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[After edit conflict, and not checking earlier responses:]

That is strange writing indeed, LS. I would wield the blue pencil throughout! But that is not the task, is it? Let's look at that one sentence, and let's separate the two questions carefully:

No valour however could avail them whom fate had already sealed.

You understood No valour however [great]..., taking however to mean to whatsoever degree or extent [great]. We might equally understand No valour, however,..., taking however to mean though. I think this more likely, in the context.

As for sealing and fate, we normally think immediately of a fate itself being sealed, right? Understanding that way, here is one possible authorial intention:

No valour ... could avail them [whose] fate had already [been] sealed.

Here I substitute whose, which may be a typesetter's error (and with infelicity in them whose since those whose is normal), and add been, whose omission might be accidental or simply a grammatical misunderstanding. (BUT NOTE: Anything that may passively be sealed may also, at a stretch, actively seal. With a different sense of seal, now: "The opening to the cave sealed before our very eyes". Unlikely, this!)

Alternatively we might let fate transitively do the sealing, rather than be sealed. So we might read like this:

No valour ... could avail them whom fate had already [marked].

See? OED gives support for fate doing such sealing, though it does not give a direct example where a person is the object of fate's action. I emphasise with bold:

[seal, v.¹ I 1.] g. To decide irrevocably (the fate of a person or thing); to complete and place beyond dispute or reversal (a victory, defeat, etc.).
1810 Shelley Marg. Nicholson Fragm. 9 Fate, envious Fate, has sealed my wayward destiny. 1817 I Revolt of Islam iv. xxv, Why pause the victor swords to seal his over~throw? 1834 Pringle Afr. Sk. v. 197 A gun was levelled, to seal the fate of this brave and generous officer. 1837 Disraeli Venetia iii. vii, Tomorrow would seal his triumph. 1867 Smiles Huguenots Eng. v. (1880) 82 The massacre of Saint Bartholomew sealed the fate of Mary Stuart.

Hmmm?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, MB and JackofOz! Great minds think alike.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be happy with this form: "The fortifications were of great strength; and, when the Christian army first approached them, were so ably and desperately defended, that even the victorious Ferdinand was compelled to retire from the siege. No valour, however, could avail those whom Fate had already sealed." To those opposed to the semicolon, it was used quite extensively in the nineteenth century. (I have read what Lynn Truss wrote about it.) Thanks JackofOz for the paene ultima correction. LShecut2nd (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about your motivation for this question. What are you hoping to achieve by identifying what you think Hubbard might have written if he'd thought about it a bit longer - but didn't? If you're quoting him, you must quote his exact words, warts and all. If you're paraphrasing him, it's not enough to just correct his grammar. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you are playing posthumous editor, trying to render in type a manuscript in longhand, I think that will do. Modern usage would have neither comma nor semicolon in the first sentence (though I'd accept a parenthetical "when...them"). The second sentence seems right. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LS, I too was not sure what form you were working with: a roughly set MS, or a longhand MS. I assumed the former. Clarify?

And Jack, the version with the semicolon doesn't work, since the second were is worse with it than without it. The author should have recast the whole thing.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working with a longhand manuscript. Hubbard himself would edit some of his work. I'm trying to present it in a very readable (and lyrical) form consistent with the period. His English is often obsolete for his day (1857). He sometimes starts a sentence with one idea and shifts to another, so I have to recast them. (It may be a hybrid work, but it is not a bastard.) I have examined contemporary publications and even some authors he had read, such as Washington Irving, to get a sense of the punctuation used then, which was written not so much by rules, but by cadence. I find this work less and less rewarding. It is monetarily ruinous. Yet I feel compelled to complete it. I have found Wikipedia a great help. Part II of the work was published first, using a vanity press. Many of my friends have found it too ponderous to finish. I am inclined to re-edit that work even though I have lost a great deal of money on the project. After this whole affair concludes, I hope to join "the real world" again and be gainfully employed.LShecut2nd (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furbish

What languages are related to Furbish? Heegoop, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a constructed language, I suppose other constructed languages like Esperanto and Klingon could be said to be related to it. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a useful relation, though. Constructed languages are hard to relate unless they're specifically designed to relate to other languages. If they were analyzed in absence of knowledge about their artificial status, Esperanto might get its own peg on the Indo-European tree, or shoved in Romance or Germanic as a truly anomalous member of those families. (Not that the artificial nature wouldn't be pretty obvious...) Klingon would probably get tossed in the Languages of California bucket; I mean there's 18 language families there already, what's a 19th? There's quite a few Esperantidos that would be clearly related to Esperanto, but Klingon is pretty clearly a language isolate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow doubt Furbish is an actual language in any meaningful sense. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] analyzes it as such, and it seems that the creators of the Furby intended it to be a small real language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roneotyped

What does it mean? It gets a small number (271) of relevant Google hits, but I can't find a definition for it. Please help. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roneotype was an early form of duplication of documents - Roneo takes you to a helpful article. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]