Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 August 19

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.

August 19

Viewing the Gothic Language Wikipedia

Would anyone happen to know how I can get the Gothic Language Wikipedia to display correctly in my browser? Do I need a language pack or just a font? Googling 'Gothic font' gives predictably a huge number of irrelevant results. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly me. Info is on that page. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, not resolved at all. The information tells me to download a font (which I did), then goes on to say, 'if you still cannot view the characters, then make a css [blah blah]' - with no information on how to do this, and actually only says it's for versions of Windows up to 2003. Can anyone help here? TIA! [Edit - mabe this should be moved to computing desk...] --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not done anything but it works for me. So, if you're really desperate for a workaround, you could probably use a live CD of Linux in a flavour that has the necessary font pre-installed (Ubuntu and derivatives?) as well as whatever else it is that your system lacks but mine has. --84.46.24.143 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I can probably get it working if I switch to my Ubuntu partition, but I am talking about while I am using Vista - sorry, I should have clarified that. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between the two operating systems, but with Windows 7, the first font here worked for me. (I think... I just clicked on the first font sometime earlier this year, so I presume it is still the same download). Hayden120 (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the Skeirs font, and have just downloaded and installed the Vulcanius font, as you have done (and put them both on my Win7 laptop just to make sure). It's working fine now, thanks, but only in Opera, and not in my default browser, which is Chrome (I haven't checked any other browsers yet). Thanks, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to figure out which Greek characters these are

Hi, I was wondering which Greek characters are being shown here (see the right hand side)? I tried using the drop down for special characters in the editing form, but many of the characters look the same, and I'm not sure which are the ones in the text. Could someone help figure this out? Thanks,  IShadowed  ✰  02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Φαίνταί μοι κῆνος ἴσος θεοἳσιν? Not sure about the accented letters... sonia♫ 03:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How's your Latin? Here's an 1826 gloss on that fragment from Sappho:
Museum criticum, or, Cambridge classical researches, Volume 2, edited by James Henry Monk, Charles James Blomfield, page 601, II. [This is a classic Ref. Desk collaboration: with the Greek letters transliterated, I could do a Google search on selected words.] —— Shakescene (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I believe that Sonia's response answers my question, but thanks to you both for helping out! Happy editing,  IShadowed  ✰  03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected it at the Wikisource page. —Angr (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I can't read Greek at all; it was a guess on my part. sonia♫ 06:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Book

Does anyone have access to the following book?

• Dubnov, Simon. Divrei Yamei Am Olam. Dvir Co., Ltd., Tel Aviv, 1956

I need someone to translate the information about Ezra's divorce decree on pg. 60. The reason being an author of a book I am reviewing has misquoted sources in other sections. I just want to make sure he isn't doing the same with this book. The author quotes Dubnov as saying a group of "priests, nobles, and Levites" disagreed withe Ezra's divorce decree and headed east. However, Ezra10:15 only says a small handful of people disagreed with the proclamation. It only mentions some Levites. Nothing is ever said about priests or nobles or that they traveled to the east.

I'm sure there is an English translation of this somewhere, but I don't know what volume the information I kneed appears in. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's on page 60 of Dubnov, but you don't know what volume of Dubnov it's on page 60 of: correct me if I misunderstood you. How many volumes are there? Would it be feasible for you to post scans of all of them somewhere? It should be easy to pick out the right one. (Incidentally, I'm guessing it's y'mei, "days of", not yamei, "seas of".)—msh210℠ 18:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book, that's why I asked if anyone else has it. His Wikipedia article says the Hebrew translation of his work is 10 volumes long. The author of the book I am reviewing does not indicate which volume he got the information from. I found the English translations on Google Books, but the second volume, the one I think I need, has not been scanned as of yet. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you contact the reference librarians at Brandeis University, Yeshiva University, or similar institutions likely to have the Dubnow volume you seek. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

JTS has probably the best Jewish library in the States. That said, I don't know where you're located, Ghostexorcist. Consider interlibrary loan.—msh210℠ 16:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello, Is it correct in written english to say :

- He is no innocent

- I've nothing left to offer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.219.150 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence should be "He is not innocent". "He is no innocent" is not standard English, and most English speakers would say it was incorrect.

"I've nothing left to offer" is fine. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. But there could be exceptions. "Innocent" can be a noun, in which case it is possible to say, "He is no innocent." The meaning there would be that "he" is not an "innocent person." But I think the more commonly encountered use of the word "innocent" is as an adverb adjective, as in, "He is not innocent." Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be "adjective", Bus stop. Innocently is an adverb. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. You are right, of course. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Innocent can (in some contexts) be used as a noun meaning "an innocent person", so I see nothing grammatically wrong with "He is no innocent". One wouldn't use it when talking about a person's not having committed a particular crime, but one could well use it when characterizing a person as worldly wise, nobody's fool, a man who's "been around the block". Deor (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I have heard of "noncombatants," for instance, referred to as "innocents." Probably children also could be referred to as "innocents." Those would be "noun" usages of the word. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See Massacre of the Innocents for an example of this usage. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok forget about innocent. Is it perfectly correct to write "he is no angel" ?

For the second question, I was wondering because it seems to me incorrect to say "I've one brother" instead of I have one brother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.219.150 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not incorrect, just non-standard in most Englishes. Scottish English would be one exception. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Scottish English is any different in this respect! Dbfirs 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably more noticeable in the negative. Scots are more likely to say "I've not heard of that before" than "I haven't heard of that before". In my experience. Or, "You'll not get away with that, you scurvy English swine", than "You won't get away ...". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This is standard in Northern English, too, but then Scots is just a dialect of Northern English (or is Northern English a dialect of Scots?) Dbfirs 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To my way of thinking* (as a Sassenach sometime resident in Scotland), neither. Northern English is a Norwegian-influenced dialect group of English, some of whose more northerly varieties are also somewhat influenced by Scots; Scots (as opposed to Scottish English, but not to be confused with the entirely different Scots Gaelic, of course) is a close sister language to English, somewhat influenced by it (and to a lesser extent by Norwegian). However, an English person rarely hears true Scots being spoken, rather the Scots speakers (probably unconsciously) switch to Scottish English in an English speakers's presence.

*Others may well think differently. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We do think differently because all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary, but this is not the place for an argument. Dbfirs 08:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yes. If you mean in the sense "He is no angel", then "He is no innocent" is fine too. Sorry about that. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Contractions like "I've" are acceptable or not depending on the formality of the writing. Nobody would quibble with "I've nothing left to offer" in a personal letter, but it would be odd in a CEO's formal report to the board (quite apart from the unlikelihood of a CEO expressing that sentiment in such a report) --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.219.150 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Space or no space after ( and before )

Is there a standard in the publishing world whether to do, for example, (this) or ( this )? Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's the first one. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually the spaces outside the brackets (like this) are written, but if there is a punctuation mark following the brackets there is usually no space (like this). ~AH1^(TCU) 20:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Romanian

What does the Romanian text at File:WINSTON.OutdoorAdvertising.IS.JPG say? hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With the help of Google Translate, it's something very close to: Council directive CE 89/622/CEE: Tobacco seriously damages health. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Google has it right. - Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinch/grain of salt

I occasionally use the phrase "to take with a pinch of salt" (second usage on Wiktionary), with the same meaning as described for "grain of salt" (wikt:grain of salt), also here. Can I assume that pinch is merely an adaption of grain, or is there something more here? Should the link not be made clear on those various pages? [Edit: I note our page confusingly says "with a pinch of salt" in the middle.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article Grain of salt could use some help in several respects, but you seem to be correct that the "pinch" version is just a variant (probably because "pinch of salt" is a familiar culinary expression in English). Deor (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A pinch (literally the amount you naturally pinch between forefinger and thumb) is quite a bit more than a grain (which usually refers to one ground crystal). The usages are different, however. 'pinch of salt' is entirely culinary, while 'grain of salt' relies on the metaphysical belief that salt adds spiritual/ontological solidity. a pinch of salt adds flavor; a grain of salt adds common sense. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This, this, the Wiktionary entry and my own experience would suggest that a "pinch of salt" can be/is used figuratively. Do you think otherwise? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The "grain of salt" expression has been used in English since at least 1647 (and probably much earlier in Latin), whereas the "pinch of salt" equivalent may be only about sixty years old (though someone will, no doubt, find an earlier usage). The meanings are identical. Dbfirs 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It may very well come from Colosians 4:6 in The Bible: "Let YOUR utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how YOU ought to give an answer to each one." schyler (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the salt metaphor was common in Latin and Greek, but we are discussing the pejorative usage here are we not? Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia usage would probably not have developed its negative sense by the time that Paul wrote to the Collossians. Dbfirs 08:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm an old-time unbeliever, but I'm a little surprised that no one's yet mentioned Matthew 5:13 [from the Sermon on the Mount, three chapters that everyone, regardless of belief or unbelief, should read periodically]

Ye are the salt of the earth, but if the salt have lost his savo[u]r, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and be trodden under foot of men.

or more pithily in Luke 14:34

Salt is good, but if the salt has lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted?

(I presume that "it" refers to the earth and not to the unsalty salt.)—— Shakescene (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, salt was commonly used in general metaphor two thousand years ago, but this has little connection with the question which was about the use of a grain or pinch of the substance to communicate scepticism. Dbfirs 09:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it refers to the unsalty salt. That's the point of the passage: if salt loses its saltiness, there's nothing to make it saltier. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

what's the name for this fallacy?

If you say something is bad (say, a painting), some people would immediately demand of you to produce a better one. What's the name for this fallacy? --117.204.83.66 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called the Burden of Proof. Or, more colloquially, Demanding Negative Proof]. schyler (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How is the OP's premise a fallacy? It's more like "criticising the critic". A critic says, "Such-and-such sucks." Someone else says, "Could you do better?" If there's any fallacy, it's the built-in assumption that critics should somehow have a clue how to create something, as opposed to criticizing the creations of others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

really, it's an ad hominem. the fact that a person cannot himself produce a decent painting does not imply that said person cannot judge whether a painting is good or bad. The 'produce a better one' demand is simply an effort to embarrass the critic into silence by pointing out an irrelevant personal limitation. --Ludwigs2 06:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It could be that. The fallacy might be the critic's assumption that creativity is "easy", and hence the creator should have done better than he did, even though the critic himself may not be able to create anything useful or artistic. The work of others always looks easy to those who don't know the effort involved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And? You can have laboured for 7 years to paint something, hampered by your lack of fingers, but if the painting isn't any good, critics are not obligated to pretend that it is just because it was difficult to do. When a child struggles to write a poem that expresses how they feel, a responsible adult will praise them, but that doesn't make the poem worth publishing, nor would the rest of the world be compelled to pretend it was. You have perfectly demonstrated why this is a fallacy: it doesn't logically follow at all. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a strange example. There's an old saying that, "Those who can't do, teach." This is kind of a corollary, "Those who can't create, criticize those who can." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an entirely apt example. It is not the effort that matters, but the quality of the work. I don't have to be able to make a table to know whether the table I'm being offered is well-made: if the legs are wobbly and the surface is covered in splinters, I'm going to call it badly made. Telling me that I don't understand how hard it is to make a table, and that I couldn't make a better table, is irrelevant. Other people can make better tables, and in comparison I know this is a badly-made table. Thus, I can criticise the table, without being able to make a good table myself. Equally, critics can say "This music is derivative of x, but without the energy and drive that made x so exciting" without having to be able to write better, more original music themselves. That you can express yourself in a quoted aphorism doesn't change this. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The point Bugs is missing here is that this entire situation is contingent on the artist presenting his work as high quality. It's one thing if I'm doodling on a cafe tablecloth and some jerk steps up and tells me my doodle is ugly. but if I have hopes of selling that doodle to the Louvre then I've opened myself up to criticism, and I don't get to use the 'but you can't do any better' line, because if I seriously put myself in competition with any old tablecloth-doodling Joe, why would I be trying to sell my work to the Louvre? part of being one of the best at something is that very few people can do it as well as you, and so the skillset of the common critic becomes irrelevant. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I do get the point. I just don't necessarily buy it. What I learned years ago from watching "Siskel & Ebert" is that critics set up a predetermined list of criteria, and if the art object fails to live up to their personal list, then they slam it. The film 2001: A Space Odyssey was raked over the coals by many (though not all) critics. The film is now considered a Sci-Fi classic and those critics are probably pushin' up daisies in obscurity, which illustrates the ultimate value of critics: as fertilizer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what Teddy Roosevelt had to say on this subject:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't especially care what an American president had to say about the subject - it isn't true because he said it. Many critics (and general members of the public) still criticise 2001: A Space Odyssey. The position being that the effects are amazing, the realisation of space and technology wonderful and the middle section generally excellent, but the opening and especially closing sections are long, slow and self-indulgent. That doesn't prevent it from being a scifi classic, nor from being culturally significant, but many of the criticisms are valid. And the criticisms wouldn't become more valid if they were spoken by a film director. However, when choosing whether to trust a critic, you will probably want to see what their record is. There are, of course, critics who aren't very good at being critics, just as there are directors who aren't very good at directing. And you don't need to be an excellent critic to spot when a critic is spouting nonsense. Or should I ask to see your published works of criticism before you're allowed to comment negatively on critics? 86.161.255.213 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, it amuses me that that "Man in the Arena" quote could as easily be used in support of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11. It actually seems more relevant to that, than to film critics. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Et tu, brute? The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese name

Hi . Can someone confirm that the person on this page [2] has signed his named Wang Ligang .(or is it someone else?) Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the characters at the bottom are 崔殿国 (pinyin: cuīdiàn'guó)—not even close to the transcription you gave. Intelligentsium 23:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Name = Cui Dianguo ? I got two people mixed up, thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wang Ligang is written 王立剛.--Cam (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved