Language desk
< November 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 2 >

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.

December 1

Delikatesswarengeschäfte? etc.

I am working on a translation of de:Adolph Friedländer at a subpage here. The sentence below is giving me a bit of trouble.

Mit einer nach dem Tod des Vaters geerbten alten Steindruck-Presse ließ sich Friedländer in der Thalstraße 22 in Hamburg-St. Pauli nieder und begann mit dem Druck von Etiketten für Kolonial- und Delikatesswarengeschäfte.

"Grocery shops and delicatessens"? Babel fish translates Delikatesswarengeschäfte (as opposed to Google which doesn't recognize it) as "delicate goods business". I have the translation right now as:

"

After his father died, Friedländer inherited his old lithographic press and set up shop in the St. Pauli quarter of Hamburg. He initially concentrated on label printing for grocery shops and delicatessens.

"

Help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolonialwaren weren't just any groceries; they were foods imported from European colonies in the tropics: bananas, coconuts, spices, and so on. Delikatesswaren can be translated into English as "delicacies". I don't think there is an exact equivalent in English for these kinds of businesses. You could roughly translate both types of business collectively as "gourmet grocers". In that case, I would suggest the following: "With an old lithographic press that he inherited after his father's death, Friedländer set up shop at 22 Thalstrasse in Hamburg's St. Pauli quarter and started out printing labels for gourmet grocers." Marco polo (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much Marco. I think I'm going to go with leaving in the German original and parenthetically state they are types of gourmet grocers. As a reader I don't like it when someone simplifies something specific from a source to something that's sort of close but not exact because there is no direct translation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delicatessen is itself (old) German for "delicacies". Card Zero (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Grocery shop may not be a perfect equivalent of Kolonialwarengeschäft, but I'm pretty sure Friedländer never refused to deliver labels to a customer if the customer did not sell colonial products or delicatessen. Kolonial- and Delikatesswarengeschäfte were the two major types of store at the time because most products grocery stores sell nowadays were sold at other places, at markets or directly from the producers and they did not need elaborate labels. Only colonial products and delicatessen needed dedicated stores and labels. In the end Friedländer made labels for everybody who needed labels. So it should be fine to use "grocery shop" or something like that without much need for parentheses. --::Slomox:: >< 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

Hello all. I am reading Hamlet and I have come across the interesting line 110 (AIII S1), where Ophelia says "Could beauty, my lord, have better commerce than with honesty?" Is this a sexual reference? In these lines the word "honesty" is used frequently to mean "chastity" and "commerce" (in French at least) is an old, very formal euphemism for "intercourse" (i.e. commerce charnel), so she is basically saying "Can beauty do better than chastity?" or more faithfully "Could beauty find better "commerce" than it presently has with chastity", no? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I really think she is just saying "Is there any better quality than honesty (chastity) to connect to beauty?" In other words, she is suggesting that honesty (chastity) and beauty should be connected and implying that they are connected in her. Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, considering his flirtatious approach, she may also be saying that "my beauty has commerce (relationship) with my honesty (chastity)" and this "commerce" is better than any "commerce (sexual relations)" that you might want to offer. Shakespeare is of course famous for polysemy and word play. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is a bit puzzling but I don't think it's a sexual reference. I've checked four translations of Hamlet into Russian and all four translate it as "is there a better companion for beauty than honesty?". --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Russian translators may have chosen the word "companion" recognizing that there is at least a romantic implication. I think another way to interpret her question is the implicit question, 'would your commerce (sexual and romantic interaction, perhaps implying marriage) be a better companion for my beauty than honesty (chastity)?' Marco polo (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's essentially telling him the best thing is to be beautiful and honest.68.32.251.73 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this called?

A relatively simple question. Among a group of friends I have, the following sentence from a video game has them baffled: "Owning the same nail polish does not a murderer make." They claim that this sentence is either grammatically incorrect or was a result of mistranslation. I know for a fact that this sentence is grammatically correct, but is there a way to describe this unconventional rearrangement of words? --WaltCip (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very conventional in that it is a rather common idiomatic construction: "blank does not a blank make". It is very versatile, as the form can be used in any number of different ways such as my use here. See this Google book search to view ammny forms. In fact, we have a essay here entitled Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make. But of course it is unconventional when one is unfamiliar with the construction and hears it with a modern English grammar ear. I found one site discussing the idiomatic form itself, here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example I immediately think of is: Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage, from 1642, so it has a long pedigree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One swallow does not a summer make is attributed to Aristole, though I guess the question there is when was the translation into English provided the framed grammatical form.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over-proscriptive rules of grammar do not a language make... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a typical poetical trick, the verb on the end of the sentence to stick. Often found in the letters page of local newpapers. Makes me sick. Card Zero (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really German then love must. Ericoides (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I German, considered in comparison to other languages, quite honestly, without beating around the bush, at all times of day, categorically, and I can't emphasise this enough, oh wait I forgot. Card Zero (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for the German verb is surely the ultimate thrill. ~ Flann O'Brien, 'The Hair of the Dogma', 1977. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I confess, when I'm reading in German, I sometimes cheat by glancing to the end of the sentence to find out what the verb is going to be. It's a bit like reading the spoilers for a movie I haven't seen yet. Angr (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When translating Latin, one practically has to do it - at least, from my experience.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wonders what it's like for native speakers of German: I don't need to cheat even with long sentences. Normally, that is. Most people nowadays make sure to avoid grammatical excesses and move to what I believe must once have been a non-standard position, after the verb. In other words, German is currently going through the same natural process that English has gone through, and that Romance languages have gone through since Latin. Hans Adler 22:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, can you give some examples of what you mean? I think Ich habe gelesen das Buch is still totally ungrammatical in German (but I'm not a native speaker). Do you mean things like Ich habe das Buch gelesen, das du mir geschenkt hast instead of Ich habe das Buch, das du mir geschenkt hast, gelesen? That's a case of heavy NP shift; I have no idea whether it's a recent development in German or not. Angr (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has nobody mentioned snowclone? BrainyBabe (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anastrophe this called is. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It always helps when you can pin a label on things. As Card_Zero mentions, a common letter-to-the-editor-ism is "up with this we will not put!" Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it is archaic grammar. In German this sort of word order is common, and in Middle English it was also pretty common. In modern English it survives only in poetic usages. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WaltCip, see Hyperbaton.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic ordinal numerals

Is it true that, from a morphological viewpoint, Germanic ordinal numerals are originally past participles? --Theurgist (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure how that would work -- ordinals have a [θ] suffix, while weak past participles have a basic [d]. Theoretically they might be related by Verner's Law, but I would tend to doubt it... AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would really have to wonder what sort of verbs they would be past participles of... I'm interested what literature asserts or even discusses that ordinals were past participles. -- the Great Gavini 10:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-th and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-ed

They go back to very similar forms in Proto-Indo-European, but were already distinguished back then. So we don't know whether they are related. There is no way to know which came first or whether the similarity is concidence. --::Slomox:: >< 12:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second link presupposes that participial "-ed" has no etymological connection with preterite "-ed", which is not absolutely clear... AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. Here is a link to the Verner's law article, for the convenience of future readers of this discussion. I'd prefer not to mention the source asserting/suggesting that, but it also suggests that Arabic ordinal numerals (ṯāliṯ, rābiʻ, ḫāmis) match the model of the active participle fāʻil because they actually were originally thought of as active participles. Not of any particular verbs, but bearing some kind of original meaning like: "fifth" = "the one making them five", "the one increasing the quantity to five", "the one turning the set of four into a set of five". --Theurgist (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Hebrew, they follow a CəCīCī pattern (e.g. שמיני "eighth") which really does not look like a participle... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

time is not a luxury

What does the phrase "time is not a luxury" mean? Gerardw (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually this is used in a phrase like "time is not a luxury we can afford". Either way, it means that we don't have much time (to accomplish something). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will the real “Will the real ‘Will the real ... please stand up?’ please stand up?” please stand up?

Does anyone have any idea of which was the original (i.e., oldest) form of the Will the real X please stand up? idiom? Googling for "will the real * please stand up" wasn't helpful, as in the first page alone there are five different versions of it. ― A. di M. 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the '50s TV show To Tell the Truth didn't originate it, it is certainly the thing that made it popular. - Nunh-huh 21:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i'm an ec magnet today) :I'm going to guess it came from To Tell the Truth. --LarryMac | Talk 21:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the same result by using the Google search tools to restrict the search for pre-1994 hits. And there were lots of different ones, such as the 1977 medical editorial The Great Crusade (or Will the Real Pyelonephritis Please Stand Up), the 1976 theological article Will the real Athanasius please stand up?, or the 1977 Christmas comedy show Will the Real Mr Claus Please Stand Up. Superficially, it appears that the late 70s were the time when this snowclone first became very popular. This 1976 episode from Saturday Nightlive has a reference to the clone that is clearly recognisable as referring to To Tell the Truth. Hans Adler 22:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an episode of The Monkees which featured the joke "Will the real Davy Jones please stand up?" "I am standing up!". As the Monkees series only lasted a couple of years in the mid-60s, this pre-dates Hans Adler's examples. I'm sure it's from "To Tell the Truth", although I think there was a UK equivalent (the name of which escapes me). --TammyMoet (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you all. ― A. di M. 22:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, not standing up is the best way to avoid being seen. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "I am Spartacus" for a possible link to McCarthyism. Astronaut (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the wrong word in television ads

I've noticed more and more frequently that television ads seem to use the wrong word deliberately, in a way that seems like it's not supposed to be noticed. For example, just in the past day (U.S.) I've encountered two ads - in one, a robotic babysitter says "Good Mormon, female child" rather than "Good morning...", and in the other, a pizza company representative says "Undercheesing is rancid" rather than "Undercheesing is rampant". Now maybe I'm just mis-hearing, but if so I'm only mis-hearing in advertisements, and I'm mis-hearing the same way every time. My guess is that somehow the subtle error is supposed to attract the viewer's subconscious attention, in people with a more rigid boundary between conscious and subconscious. But how/where does a person research advertising theory to see if something has been published about such a thing? Wnt (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start by typing -- malapropisms advertising -- into Google scholar. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The robot one is here. I believe it is saying good morning, just in a bad computer voice. Rmhermen (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If anything, I hear "Good mornin'..." Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed bad grammar in ads, too, and not just where it's somebody trying to talk in an "ethnic" way. I have to believe that those paying millions of dollars to run such an ad campaign are capable of having somebody competent proofread the ads, so I must conclude that they either do it on purpose, or simply don't care. Those ads do grab my attention, but they don't make me want to buy their products, especially where they are selling something that requires intelligence: "We are goodly lawyers, so call us firstly." StuRat (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mis-hearing. Actually, I initially heard "rancid" too and thought it odd that a word having both a basic meaning of "spoiled (pertaining to food)" as well as an extended meaning of "bad" was used--particularly when the reference was to food and thus quite ambiguous. Then I realized that what the pizza spokesman said was "rampant."

Hello

Hello,my name is Arsalan and i'm 16 years old.I live in iran.I've play basketball 9years in iran.i can play the basketball well.I've played in many tournament. may i give a test in emirates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsalan-Khalaf (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arsalan. I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I think you have come to the wrong place. This is the Language Reference Desk on (English) Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. We have articles about basketball and several different meanings of emirates, but we have no connection with them. --ColinFine (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In emirates" surely means in the UAE, across the Persian Gulf. "May I" might mean this is a legal question, or perhaps something to do with the rules of a sport organisation. "Give a test" is the part I don't understand, particularly in the context of basketball. Card Zero (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP wishes to make his basketball skills available to UAE teams and wants to know how to go about it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan, first you have to identify teams in the Emirates Basketball League. You can do that through Google. Then you have to find their email addresses and get in touch with them. Surely they will invite you if you can prove yourself. Good luck! --Omidinist (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know in British English a "test match" is just another name for a game, so perhaps he was asking if he could play against them ? StuRat (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A test match in cricket or Rugby is specifically a game between national teams and in cricket, national teams of a certain standard. It's more likely that he's asking if he can have a trial or tryout. Alansplodge (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 December 1

Contents