Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 August 1

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 31	Language desk archive	August 2 >

"Even" in German edit

How do I say "even" in German? For example, "she wasn't even there", or "did you even know her?" I have thought it was something like "eins" or "einst" but I can't find any examples of it. JIP | Talk 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single word having the same meaning, it depends on the context. Sie war [noch] nicht einmal da, kanntest Du sie überhaupt? In other cases, other words would be correct, e.g., "even more" = noch mehr, "even I am confused" = sogar ich bin verwirrt.--gwaihir 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To break even= ausgleichen, am Übergang zum Gewinn stehend (as in Breakeven), but I think this is a little farfetched. Lectonar 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bond, James Bond edit

This is probably the most famous example of what I see as a film cliche. Someone is asked their name, and they give their surname, then their first name and surname again. It was extremely common in westerns when they were standard fare, but it appears in all kinds of movies. Trouble is, I've never heard anybody in real life ever answer the question that way. People just either give their first name, or both names, but not both. Is this a reflection of something peculiar to American custom, or is it just a cliche that bears little relation to reality? JackofOz 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that James Bond is British, not American. Sorry, I know that doesn't help. -Oatmeal batman 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. It illustrates how pervasive the cliche has become. It has spread its tentacles transatlantically. JackofOz 14:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, a person would be known by their surname, and in some contexts this still is the case. For example, when I book a table at a restaurant, I book it under my surname 'Hughes'. In Wales and some parts of England, my name is fairly common, and I found myself recently having to qualify my booking by saying 'Hughes, Gareth Hughes', so that the restaurant could distinguish me from other people of the same name. I suppose this would happen in all sorts of formal name-giving interactions. However, the name 'Bond' is not really that common. — Gareth Hughes 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bond might disagree. Even "J. Bond" isn't enough to distinguish the two. We also have articles on Alan Bond (businessman), Kit Bond, Ruskin Bond, Samantha Bond, and Nigel Bond. StuRat 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In America, you would just book your table under the name "Gareth", which is there an extremely rare first name so no further disambiguation would be necessary. When you arrived at the restaurant, you'd probably find they had written down "Garrett" instead. User:Angr 08:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the James Bond novels were written, it would have been less than completely polite to have introduced yourself in elevated social circles as "James Bond". "Bond, James Bond" is a much more polite form as 007 would have been well aware. (This was at a time when, if he were married, his wife would be introduced by others as "Mrs. James Bond"; it's not so very long ago that this was abandoned at Wimbledon.) Notinasnaid 09:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of a catchphrase is that it while it is comprehensible, it's not something that one often says in real life (a non-distinctive catchphrase wouldn't catch). Henry ^Flower 09:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have set myself up for failure with this one, by drawing attention to James Bond and his ubiquitous catchphrase. It's not about Bond, or even a particularly British thing. It is still an extremely common occurrence in American movies that have nothing to do with Britain. Westerns were full of it: "What's your name, pardner?" ... "Earp, Wyatt Earp" - or some such variation. JackofOz 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a Night Court episode where the lawyer is in Alaska or something and introduces himself as "Dan, Dan Fielding", and the natives then refer to him as "Dan Dan Fielding". Adam Bishop 02:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the case of Major Major in Heller's Catch-22, who when asked his name presumably had to reply "Major, Major Major", and following his induction and subsequent commission in the army would have had to say "Major Major, Major Major Major". Lexo 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking the concept to new heights. JackofOz 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Name Order edit

What is the standard order of Japanese names on Wikipedia? Family name -> Given name? The other way around? If anyone can give some insight, I would appreciate it. -Oatmeal batman 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Names. --Ptcamn 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -Oatmeal batman 14:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Japanese friend's name in Japanese characters is surname, then given name. - Random Person

Biblical names in Hebrew edit

I've been wondering why the names of biblical characters on Wikipedia such as King David, Samuel etc. are given first in modern Hebrew (called "standard Hebrew"), and then in Tiberian Hebrew? After all, Tiberian Hebrew is the closest we come to the original biblical Hebrew pronuncuation. This seems to me like the analogue of using the modern Italian rendition of Julius Caesar (Giulio Cesare) before the classical Latin one 'gaɪ.us 'jul.ius 'kaɪ.sar, or the modern Greek rendition of Homer as Omiros before the classical Greek one Hómēros.--194.145.161.227 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Tiberian pronunciation differed in a significant number of details from the pronunciation of 1000 B.C. To start with, there was no spirantization of stops in 1000 B.C., and probably no vowel reduction or seghol epenthesis or "tone lengthening" (or at least not in anything like the fully developed form in which these phenomena are found in Tiberian), and there could have very well have been numerous surviving remnants of the case vowels. AnonMoos 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard pronunciation of the Bible — Tiberian Hebrew — was developed by the Masoretes. It is likely that this pronunciation differed from that of the Biblical Hebrew language (poor article!), and a number of hypotheses exist about the reconstruction of Biblical Hebrew in various stages. I suppose Modern Hebrew pronunciation is included because biblical names form the basis for many personal names in Israel. — Gareth Hughes 16:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that's hardly a sufficient reason, especially for placing the Modern Hebrew version first. Yes, I know that Tiberian Hebrew isn't exactly the same as Biblical Hebrew at various stages between 1200 and 500 BC, but it's the only complete and (nearly) certain system of pronunciation we have. I don't have much literature on Biblical themes, but an encyclopedia of mythology, a work on Phoenician mythology and a recent Russian work that I have all use the Tiberian forms. So - would anyone object to the Tiberian forms being moved before the modern ones (if the modern ones must be kept at all, which I suppose can't be avoided)? --194.145.161.227 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Modern hebrew and the tiberian hebrew are pronuonced the same way. The difference is the characters. The Hebrew presented is in Hebrew characters that are very old (around 200 BCE, there were older scripts which basically was a different font). Tiberian hebrew is using written symbols came into use in the early Middle Ages that show how to pronounce the word. The pronunciation is the same for the tiberian hebrew as it is for the modern hebrew it is just a different way of showing it for people who cannot read Hebrew script. Jon513 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly true. For example, Tiberian Hebrew is supposed to be pronounced with a distinction between short and long vowels, with a separate ayin sound as in modern Arabic, with a number of spirants (gh, dh, th), with a schwa sound, with "waw" as in "will" rather than "vice", with teth and tsade pronounced as emphatic/pharyngealized consonants as in modern Arabic (rather than as t, ts), etc. All of this is absent in modern Hebrew. --194.145.161.227 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. For the example of "David" (דָּוִד), the Tiberian pronunciation was probably /dɔːˈwiːð/, while the Modern pronunciation is /daˈvid/. User:Angr 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American wild turkeys edit

Could you please tell me what a group of North American wild turkeys is called? Is it a flock, gaggle, or herd? I've checked everywhere I could on your search area. Thank you very much for your time.

List of animal names says a group of turkeys is called a rafter or a flock. digfarenough (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have called them a "gobble", or maybe even a "franklin", after Ben's desire to make them the US national bird (instead of the bald eagle). StuRat 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So at christmas you yanks would gobble up quite a few gobbles. Gobble gobbling. :) DirkvdM 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, a single turkey is a gobbler. And we eat them at Thanksgiving, not Christmas. User:Angr 13:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We eat turkey on Christmas too, but that's Canada, and there is much more time between the two holidays. Adam Bishop 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We eat them at Christmas, too, though lately we've gone to roast beef. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes for Christmas it is a big smoked ham — Michael J 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft! Ham is for New Year's! :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way, ham is for Easter! Adam Bishop 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! Ham is for Christmas, black-eyed peas are for New Years, and lamb is for Easter. User:Angr 07:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky me, I'm not religious, so I always eat what I like. Freedom! :) DirkvdM 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken or quorn at Christmas and Easter, fish supper on The Twelfth, obviously! ;) - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 08:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]