Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 July 27

Language desk
< July 26	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 28 >

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.

July 27

Problem with Ancient Greek.

Specifically, I don't understand it. But I like how it looks.

Does anyone know what it says in the margins of this page? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You mean the column of symbols on the right? Those are Greek numerals (αʹ, βʹ, γʹ, δʹ, εʹ, ϛʹ) etc. The whole page is a table of contents of chapters of the bible ("τὰ κεφάλαια τοù κατὰ Ἰωάννου"), beginning with "περὶ τοὺ ἐν Κανᾱ γάμου" ("on the Marriage at Cana"). The page is written in Greek minuscule, a typical medieval style of handwriting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the "gold" letters in top and bottom (are those even called margins?)

But thanks, I was sort of wondering what else you answered, too. I knew I was looking at Bible stories, in some sort of Greek, but that's about it. Not even sure why I'm wondering about the gold letters, just am. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Crap. Doesn't help that I linked the wrong page. Sorry, I'll fix that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There, all good now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, those are a lot more difficult to read. Different, possibly later, hand, and lots of abbreviations. They seem to be annotations about which liturgical day each chapter is to be read on. This one starts with "Ευ[αγγέλιον] Ἐωθ[ινο]ν ιαʹ" ("Gospel for the 11th matin", or something like that). I can't figure out the rest of the line, but it's probably a short summary of what the passage is about. I don't know enough about the orthodox liturgy to explain the meaning further, but on this [1] page you can see that the same gospel passage from John 21 is still scheduled for an "Εωθινόν ιαʹ" in the current orthodox liturgy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the bottom line contains something like "ἐφα[νέρωσεν] ἐαυ[τό]ν ὁ Ι[ησοῦ]ς τ[οι]ς μαθ[ηταί]ς ἀ[υτο]ύ εγερθ[εί]ς εκ νεκρών" ("Jesus appearing to his disciples after his resurrection from the dead"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, sorry for any confusion! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Query validity of word knowns

Does the word KNOWNS appear in any English dictionary?16:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.179.92 (talk)

As the regular plural of the nominalized form of the participle known, yes: wikt:known#Noun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

See, e.g., known knowns. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In algebra and such, the expression "[however many] unknowns" often appears. If there are unknowns, there are knowns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Benounst to many, there's a told number of situations where using an unprefixed negative would be toward and gainly. [2] -- 67.40.211.229 (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The word you're wanting to de-negativise is "unbeknownst" (--> "beknownst"). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=knowns&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/knowns.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)