Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 January 12

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Language
Language desk
< January 11 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 13 >
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 12 edit

Por vs para edit

I'm studying Spanish but I have some trouble remembering when to use por and para; the book doesn't really do a good job in this respect, it only complicates what my amigos hispanohablantes say is a simple distinction (but which they always say is "hard to explain in English"). The book gives a long list of cases with complicated exceptions (for example, it says "para is used when talking about going to a place, unless you are just passing through in which case you use por", and "para is used to say you work for somebody unless you are working in place of them, in which case you use por). What is an easier way to remember than to remember all the cases (which I'm sure are not all-encompassing)? If it helps my French is much better than my Spanish, so you can explain it in terms of French grammar if it would be easier. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 January 2#Por/Para vs. Pour/Par.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It helps me to think of the difference in physical terms. Para is movement toward a target. The end point of the movement is the object of the preposition: the destination, the person for whom or result for which something is done or the person or thing to whom or to which something is given. By contrast, por is movement past or through (or because of) something. The object of the preposition is the means by which or reason for which something is done, the person by whom something is done, or the route by which one reaches a destination. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation required edit

"I Grump, therefore I am." - 'Grumble' would probably be easier to translate. Can anyone help? :-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queror ergo sum. (bit of a lame attempt - just trying to get things started :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I am indignant, therefore I am" (if Wikipedia is correct about 'Queror'). I like it! AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis & Short gloss it as "complain, lament, bewail". No mention of "to be indignant", though. Fremo ergo sum might do well too. Pais (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, or Stomachor ergo sum. That has the same number of syllables and the same stress pattern as cogito, so the word play is a little stronger. Pais (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fremo ergo sum has a nice ring to it too. Thanks all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grumpo ergo sum may not be valid Latin, but it has an even better ring to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or as Julius would have put it, Groucho ergo sum. Deor (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just as good or better. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"warfighter" edit

Doesn't the word "warfighter" sound like a common occupation—like garbage collector or auto repairman? Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the words warrior and soldier already denote that occupation? Pais (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. They are more commonly used words. I may be wrong about "warfighter" sounding like a common occupation. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because it sounds like firefighter? Lexicografía (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could be it. I had not thought of that. Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a bit ambiguous. Is it someone fighting in one or against war in general (like firefighter)? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Soldier" and "warrior", mentioned above, have a well-worn appearance. But "warfighter" still contains its component parts. It sounds unsophisticated, like a toddler invented it. But toddlers are probably more sophisticated than that. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Pentagon is using the term in place of serviceman/woman/member. Typical bureaucratese. Corvus cornixtalk 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a propaganda issue? Emphasising the war and fighting aspect of the role of being a military personnel? If so it would only work in the US where soldiers actually fight in things which, if not wars in a legal sense, look and smell like them. It doesn't make much sense in those other countries which participate much less frequently in hostile military action, since the main active jobs of their military personnel, other than being ready to defend the country, is not fighting of wars, but building things, rescuing people and property in natural disasters, and that kind of thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please explain this poem? edit

  • so I took an attire
  • where my hair reminding an ad
  • with sharp flying atonement

I can't understand the "ad with sharp flying atonement". Can somebody explain it to me? The whole poem is here --117.204.86.94 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't. Not only do I not understand it, but it does not even suggest anything coherent to me. I see that it is full of unusual collocations, each of which means nothing to me: "we ... has"; "took ... attire"; "reminding an ad"; "sharp flying atonement". --ColinFine (talk)
It is very hard to tell with this kind of impressionistic poetry, but could there be a hint of "not a native English speaker" here? 81.159.77.192 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of formatting the quote part of the question. Given the very odd language of the poem, there was no reason to believe that "I can't understand the" was not also part of the poem - until I read further and realised that those were the first 4 words of the question about the poem and not part of the poem itself. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "About" section of the website linked said that the author, C.P. ABOOBACKER (I presume it's the same person as the C.P. Aboobaker identified on the poem page) - "belongs to Calicut in Kerala". Perhaps a native speaker of the local dialect of English would make more sense of the poem cited. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lines given are a small section of a much longer poem, "a soul in attire"(no capitalisation per poems' author). It's an interesting read. It seems to be about love lost, and probably the spirit of a person visiting their lost love, funeral pyres being mentioned. Above the poem there is also what appears to be a set of wings (angels'?) presumably the 'attire' of a soul.
The full stanza (one of eight) is, (OP quote in italics):
which puts it more in context. And still available online ≈31 months later. --220 of Borg 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2011_January_12&oldid=1143528780"