Language desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

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.

October 22[edit]

Seminal architect[edit]

Good evening.
I'm a contributor in the french wikipedia. I found the following sentence in Holy Trinity Cathedral (Chicago, Illinois) : Louis Sullivan, one of the seminal architects of the 20th century. I would like to know what is the meaning of seminal in this context. Thank you Dhatier (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means 'very influential'—particularly, something original that provided the basis for future work/research. For example, "the article by Bever (1970) was a seminal work in cognitive science". The etymology of the word is related to semen and seeds... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag's interpretation of that sentence is definitely correct, but the sentence itself is a little bit awkward. "Seminal" used in that meaning would normally refer to a work or an invention, not to a person. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to say "one of the most influential" rather than "one of the very influential"; seminal means influential, but implies that few if any are more so. As such - and assuming my French is not too horrific - I'd translate it as "Louis Sullivan, un des architectes le plus influents du vingtième siècle." Grutness...wha? 05:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. Your translation is near perfect (just replace le by les). Dhatier (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claim that the original sentence is awkward. The extension of "seminal" from the works to the person seems natural to me. --Anonymous, 18:55 UTC, October 22, 2009.

Neither do I see anything awkward in such a usage. It would be more awkward if, instead of calling Sullivan (or Kafka, Picasso, Einstein) seminal you would have to list their innovative works. Seminal comes from semen and those are - in a wider, not gender oriented sense - responsible for evolution and revolution. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The online Oxford English Dictionary def 4(a) is "Having the properties of seed; containing the possibility of future development. Also, freq. used of books, work, etc., which are highly original and influential; more loosely: important, central to the development or understanding of a subject". The citation in the old 2-volume print edition that came closest to using the word to describe people was "1838 MILL Bentham in Westm. Rev. Aug. 468 Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Taylor Coleridge--the two great seminal minds of England in their age" but the online version gives the more recent "1977 New Yorker 6 June 122/2 That the two pianists, each seminal, agreed to play together at all was startling". So maybe that reflects a changed or new usage and it's still awkward in an older sense.

I suppose that the invention of Coca-Cola in 1885 gave birth to the entire global soft-drink industry and many associated cultural artifacts. So I wonder if it's proper to describe Coca-Cola itself as a seminal fluid ;-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

german math translation[edit]

Neuer Beweis des Satzes, dass jede ganze rationale Function einer Veränderlichen dargestellt werden kann als ein Product aus linearen Functionen derselben Veränderliche

Thanks. Cite is from Fundamental theorem of algebra. There are a few words I'm not sure of so I thought I'd ask here.

69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives "New proof of the theorem that every integral rational function of one variable can be represented as a product of linear functions of the same variable". Assuming "ganze rationale Function" means "polynomial" (which makes a lot of sense), that's exactly the statement of the fundamental theorem of algebra, so I expect it's correct. Algebraist 02:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I thought "ganze rationale Function" might have something to do with entire functions. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In German, "function" is spelled "Funktion" (the same goes for "Produkt") and instead of "Veränderliche" you would say "Variable", assuming it means the term for the x in 2+x=4. So the sentence would be: "Neuer Beweis des Satzes, dass jede ganze rationale Funktion einer Variablen dargestellt werden kann als ein Produkt aus linearen Funktionen derselben Variablen." I don't have the slightest clue what a "rationale Funktion" or a "polynomial" is, so I can't tell if it's the correct term in German. --213.163.64.43 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays yes, but if you look under Fundamental theorem of algebra#Historic sources you'll see that Weierstraß (1891) spells Function and Product with C's and uses "Veränderliche" as a noun rather than "Variable". +An gr 10:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: It was a result of the Orthographische Konferenz (spelling reform) in 1901 that C in loan words was generally replaced by K or Z. On the other hand, the term "Veränderliche" is still used in mathematics. In my understanding it seems to be a straight synonym of "Variable". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was a historic quote. I also did a quick search on Google and it seems, that "Veränderliche" is indeed still used in mathematics. Outside of this context (even inside), it sounds very old-fashioned and strange to me (I'm a native speaker of German), I wouldn't use it in a conversation or in writing. When I was in school (1980s), we used "Platzhalter" (place marker or placeholder) as a synonym for "Variable". --213.163.72.149 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, ganze Funktion is indeed the German term for "entire function", so the theorem actually reads "every entire rational function etc". This is an inessential variant of the fundamental theorem of algebra (on the one hand, any polynomial is an entire rational function; on the other hand, if every polynomial splits into linear factors, then every entire rational function is a polynomial, hence every entire rational function is a product of linear functions). — Emil J. 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ganz-rationale Funktion" is indeed the German for "polynomial". Slightly old fashioned (I would use "Polynom" instead), but a google search still comes up with a fair number of hits.195.128.250.7 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is from an 1891 paper by Weierstraß cited in Fundamental theorem of algebra, and I'd like to give a faithful translation (old-fashioned is fine, since it's an old paper) of the reference. Right now I've put "integral rational function" there per Algebraist's Google search, but if you think some other translation is better, I'd appreciate any suggestions (or feel free to edit the article directly). Thanks! 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The literal translation is "entire rational function", as I said, or if what 195.... writes is correct, you can simply call it a "polynomial". FWIW, ganze means "whole" in general German. What, pray tell, is an "integral function"? The theorem has nothing to do with integers or integrals. — Emil J. 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is also (up to a word) the German translation of the title of Gauss' 1799 doctoral dissertation at Helmstedt (in absentia) Demonstratio nova theorematis omnem functionem algebraicam rationalem integram unius variabilis in factores reales primi vel secundi gradus revolvi posse; of course, "functio algebraica rationalis integra" is a polynomial function, as EmilJ said. Clearly Weierstrass was quoting Gauss. (Gauss put the thing in the real case, so that he was speaking of first or second degree factors; Weierstrass does the whole thing in the complex case where).--pma (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC) --pma (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Dialect Question.[edit]

Which northern British dialect would pronounce the word 'music' as something like /'mjəuzɪk/? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend that /əu/ to be a diphthong or separate vowels? If you mean separate vowels then I'm not sure I know of any British accents that pronounce it that way. If you mean it as a diphthong then it would be very difficult to distinguish from the more conventional pronunciation in normal speech. --Tango (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I would mean it as a diphthong. Maybe a better way of putting it in IPA would be /mjouzik/. It is definitely not /mju:zik/, as I would normally pronounce it. The area I am thinking of is possibly a certain part of Yorkshire, but may include Lancashire. I can't be sure and would like to pin it down. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My IPA skills are not the best, but it reminds me of the Mackem accent heard in and around Sunderland (sometimes confused with Geordie, though there are significant differences). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does वृन्दावन क्षाम mean?[edit]

I brought some rudraksha beads at a dewali festival. They came with a small orange bag which has a picture of Krishna Radha and the writing वृन्दावन क्षाम underneath. I have looked up Vrindavan, and seen that it is a town in Uttar Pradesh, but the context doesn't seem to fit. I am sure there is some religious significance to the words. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the script, but if the word is Vrindavan, it does make sense. That town is where Krishna spent his childhood, which was the period of his life when he knew and spent time with Radha. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm studying Hindi but not fluent. The word क्षाम can be transliterated Ksham in Hindi, and probably Kshama in Sanskrit. I can't read enough Hindi to determine the context from a Google search, but a Google search of the Romanized transliteration brings up a lot: you can look at the search results for either Ksham or Kshama (e.g., among many others, http://www.rheasrhapsody.co.uk/page_1209258193219.html -- do a text search on the page when you get there) --71.111.194.50 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having asked a vishnavite friend he pointed to http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=ksaama&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=SE which defines kshaama as dried up, wasted, or burnt. I know the word क्षमा (ksamaa) as patience & forgiveness. This makes me think that there are two possibilities. Either it is a mistake and should have said वृन्दावन क्षमा or it is a lamentation on the state of modern India as "Krishna's land wasted/gone to waste". -- Q Chris (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken ambiguity[edit]

I was in a lecture today and the professor said the following:

There's heparin and coumadin which is the drug of choice in such a case

And it was only after she began the next sentence that I realized I had misunderstood what she was saying.

"There's heparin and coumadin. Which is the drug of choice in such a case?"

"There's heparin...and coumadin, which is the drug of choice in such a case."

She meant the latter, and I was thinking she meant the former. Is it odd that "which is" can refer to both a question and an "assignment"-type reference? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a question the pitch of the voice rises. In a statement (not a question) the pitch of the voice does not rise. I guess she did not make that clear "pitch" distinction. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you havie a rising pitch for a WH questions, you'll just sound like you're not sure you're asking the right question (try it with Why don't you cry about it?). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is complex, and subtle. The distinction is all in the delivery, I think. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was sort of an informal lecture for 7 students, and because there was an unusually long pause after the word "case," I was about to answer, when she began talking again. It was only then that I realized there had been no question posed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's not odd, as "which" itself has two meanings—the complementizer ( = "that") and the wh-word ( = "which one"). What's odd is that her voice didn't contain any prosodic cues (if your account is right) to help out. In the first case, there would be a longer pause after "coumadin" ~~and, as Bus stop points out, her pitch would rise at the end of the question~~; there would also probably stress on "which". In the second case, there would be a shorter pause after coumadin (and maybe a longer pause after heparin), and her pitch would fall at the end. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not asking which one is better, shouldn't it really be "There's heparin and coumadin, which are the drugs of choice..." Or "There are heparin..." Isn't the ambiguity at least in part due to the grammatical error? I know that we often speak less formally than we write, but there are times ~~where~~ when grammar is important even in speaking. –RHolton ≡– 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]