Language desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

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.

June 3[edit]

Translating an oddball sentence into Latin[edit]

I want to render the sentence "Life happens at lunchtime" in Latin. Of course I can use a Latin dictionary, and I think I've used mine to figure out the right words, conjugations, and declensions. (And although there's no single word like our compound "lunchtime", I assume constructing a phrase that conveys that meaning shouldn't be hard. My best guess is to use hora and prandium.) But without consulting somebody who knows Latin grammar and vocabulary on a more instinctive level than I do, I can't feel certain that I wouldn't screw up somewhere. And I hate it when people get Latin wrong. A. Parrot (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difficulty here is to know whether by "lunchtime" you mean the mid-day meal or the small meal. Through history many cultures have preferred to eat a large "dinner" near mid-day, and a smaller "supper" in the evening, so the two are not necessarily the same. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot, why don't you tell us what you've got so far, and we'll see how we can improve it. One bit of advice I can give right off the bat, though, is that Latin is a very literal-minded language. English uses all sorts of metaphors that make no sense in Latin, a language where you really have to say precisely what you mean. In this case, to say something that sounds like something Cicero or Caesar would say, you might have to first convert it into what you literally mean, maybe something like "Important decisions are made at lunch" and then translate that into Latin. Angr (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Figures. Well, the sense I'm trying to convey is that the most pleasant / most fundamental / most profound part of life takes place around the time of the midday meal. (It's a deliberate and slightly silly exaggeration of a vague and subjective feeling I've sometimes had.)

I was thinking of using vita; then, as the verb, the third-person form of either accidere (accidit?) or that strange verb that my dictionary refers to as fio fieri factus sum; then maybe ad hora prandii or whatever other phrase might convey the sense "at the time of (midday) lunch".

But to more literally reflect my meaning, maybe I should try to translate "The essence of life takes place at lunchtime". Essentia might work there, though I don't know whether it can be used with a verb meaning "happen" or "take place". Another option might be "The essence of life is at lunchtime", though whether that could be rendered sensibly in Latin, I don't know. A. Parrot (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but here are my best guesses: "Life happens at lunchtime" = "Vita in hora prandii fit"; "The essence of life happens at lunchtime" = "Essentia vitae in hora prandii fit". At here should in, not ad, which means "to, towards" in the directional sense (cf. "nunc et in hora mortis nostrae"). Fio is the passive of facio, so literally it means "is done", and might be the most general. Of the other options for the verb, here's what Lewis & Short says: "(The distinction between the syn. evenio, accido, and contingo is this: evenio, i. e. ex-venio, is used of either fortunate or unfortunate events: accido, of occurrences which take us by surprise; hence it is used either of an indifferent, or, which is its general use, of an unfortunate occurrence: contingo, i. e. contango, indicates that an event accords with one's wishes; and hence is generally used of fortunate events. As Isid. says, Differ. 1: Contingunt bona: accidunt mala: eveniunt utraque)". Lesgles (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Does anyone see problems with Lesgles' suggestions, or are they good to go? A. Parrot (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Lesgles has said strikes me as correct from my knowledge of Spanish and having studied French and Latin. What is really at question is what you mean by the statement. Do you mean to say "Life is what happens at lunchtime?" Do you mean "life is what happens (without you) while you are eating lunch"? A few paraphrases would help. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's based on a feeling that's difficult to describe even in English, and I originally rendered it as "Life happens at lunchtime", rather than some wordier explanation, because I want the sentence to be slightly cryptic. It's not so much about an event (something happening around lunchtime) as how I feel about the time of day that surrounds and includes lunch. Maybe I should have said "Life is lunchtime", but I didn't do that because I didn't want to imply that life is all about eating lunch.

I think Essentia vitae in hora prandii fit comes close to what I mean; I don't want to use the other "happen" verbs because they seem to imply an event too strongly. If fit implies an event as well, maybe it should be replaced with the applicable form of esse, as long as that wouldn't imply that eating lunch is the purpose of life. So I think all that needs to be settled is the choice of verb.

Like I say, the sentence is meant to be cryptic—maybe the Tabula Smaragdina would be a better model than Cicero—so I don't think it has to be very precise. A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that you want the form of it to be brief and elegant, but the sense is still unclear. You should give us some plainspoken long-ass english sentences that don't leave you meaning vague--they can be condensed into something once it is clear want you want said in detail. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want brief and quasi-cryptic, then how about Omnia meridie? ("Omnia" is always a good word to include in a Latin proverb...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a play on the familiar phrase : Summa cum laude: Summa Vitae cum Prandii = The highest/greatest life is with lunch?? Dont try to use the "event/happen" idea.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the word order of summa cum laude is tricky, (summa modifies laude) and you end up in a word order that would never be used saying "lives/of life with the highest lunch". μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Medeis, you are being a bit of a pedant. So give a brother a little help and rearrange the words to say "The highest/greatest of life is lunch(time)". or "the height of life is lunch" or "lunch is the height of life" or "lunch is the high life" or "life doesn't get any better than lunchtime".165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that would work. A. Parrot (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I wasn't trying to be picky; summa vitae cum prandii is just plain unworkable. As for an aphorism, I am going with Prandio fruuntur omnes; "everyone enjoys lunch." Fruor, "to enjoy" is a deponent verb that takes it object in the ablative. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summa vitae prandio is meaningful (though it doesn't have much to do with "summa cum laude")... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be summa vitae prandium (est)? The best of life is lunch? Prandio, "by lunch" is the ablative. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summa vitae prandio and Summa vitae prandium est are both valid Latin, but with different meanings. The first, with prandio (vaguely "by/at lunch"), goes more with the brief and quasi-cryptic theme... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realized where got they Yoda's funny way speaking of I just did165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summa vitae prandio seems like it would need some other verb than the implied est to be modified by the instrumental prandio. Instead, how about prandentibus vivenda vita, "by the lunching is life to be lived"; or even the Catonian vita prandenda est, "life is to be lunched"? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vivit quisquis prandeat? He lives who lunches? μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't provided more detail; it's just very psychologically difficult for me to explain certain feelings in detail. If summa vitae prandio works as AnonMoos says and can refer to the time around lunch (not just to food), then it's probably the best option. If not, maybe I should just give up. A. Parrot (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summa vitae prandio means "The highest/best of life (is) at/by/with lunch", where the relationship expressed by ablative case is intentionally left quite vague (as indicated by the alternative English prepositions in the translation). Omnia meridie literally means "Everything at noon". Those were my proposals... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. As long as you're sure about that, summa vitae prandio sounds right. Thank you all for your help. A. Parrot (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smearing black stuff on the palate to measure place of articulation[edit]

I remember when I took an introductory phonetics course years ago, we saw images of what people used to test place of articulation before electropalatography existed--they would smear some black stuff (apparently a mixture of chocolate and something sooty) on a person's palate, then have them say a sound, then take a picture of the palate to see where the tongue had made contact.

What's that method called? I can't for the life of me remember it, and I want to find some images of it to include in slides for a class I'm preparing (specifically, to illustrate k-fronting in English). Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the answer, but it reminds me of disclosing tablets for detecting dental plaque. There is a slight possibility that this information can help other editors to provide the needed answer.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, it's a mixture of olive oil and "powdered digestive charcoal" (whatever that is); you paint it on the tongue and take a picture of the palate to produce a palatogram, and then you paint it on the palate and take a picture of the tongue to produce a linguogram. Our rather incomplete article is at palatography. Angr (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Charcoal#Medicine. Alansplodge (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Logical" languages[edit]

I only speak English. Even though I am a native English speaker, I can find the language confusing. It seems to me that there are not only grammar rules (of course) and "exceptions to the rules," but also "exceptions to the exceptions!" To me, there does not seem to be a "logic" to the English language. For example, the singular is goose while the plural is geese. Although it rhymes, the singular is moose and the plural is moose. The singular is mouse while the plural is mice. And so on. So, my questions are: are there any languages that are more "logical" than other languages? If so, what makes them "logical" and how to those languages remain "logical" over time.

99.250.103.117 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about natural human languages, probably not really, although some languages may seem that way to speakers of other languages. Sanskrit seemed so perfect to the speakers of its later descendants that they gave it its name, which means "Perfect". And Sanskrit does indeed have fewer irregularities than English, say, but it still does have some irregularities and illogicalities. If you want truly logical languages, you have to turn to artificial constructed languages like Lojban. Angr (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a natural language with very few exeptions, Japanese is a contender, but it has a lot of other features that you will probably find "illogical" (the writing system is the main one for me). --Lgriot (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish is pretty regular - only two genders, single verb forms for each tense, no noun declension, relatively few irregular verbs or plural nouns, compound tenses in pretty much the same places English has them - and is structurally close to English, with a very similar alphabet. Of the languages I speak, I found it to be the most 'logical' and the easiest to pick up. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure "similar to English" is really the same as "logical". Among the languages I've come across, Turkish has always struck me as impressively regular and consistent. Very consistent typological patterns (head-final throughout, agglutinative throughout); very nearly phonemic spelling system; very transparent and regular phonological patterns in the vowel harmony; hardly any lexical irregularities in the morphological system beyond that; no nonsense about inflection classes, grammatical gender or the like. You can basically pick up the whole inflectional system within a few hours (though employing it in its many combinatorial possibilities is a different matter). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish is an interesting example because it's a language that, within the past century, underwent a really strong top-down movement (mandated by the government) to clean it up and standardize it. So, languages that have recently undergone this sort of authoritative standardization would be one place to start looking for more "logical" languages. Of course, there are many exceptions--in the case of French, the Académie française once tried to keep the language neat and tidy but it has not been successful in that [misguided] endeavor. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you are confused is because English has gathered words from anywhere and everywhere it finds itself. So we have words from our origins (apple, ball etc), from our conquerors (adroit), from our empire (verandah, yacht)and ones invented by famous English speakers (accused, addiction): not to mention Hebrew "Christian" names (David, Abigail). No other language does this on such a scale. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That a word is first attested in Shakespeare, does not mean he invented it. 86.163.0.30 (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is as broad as the entire science of linguistics. Your specific question about goose/geese is explained under i-umlaut. As an introduction to linguistics for English readers I recommend A Mouthful of Air by Anthony Burgess followed up by an old used edition of the standard textbook An Introduction to Language by Fromkin and Rodman. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgin is another article you'd find interesting reading. These languages are in the early stages of formation and are considered "simplified"... 184.147.118.213 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgin is an interesting article, but the unusual situation in which they arise requires stable long-term economic interaction (or dominiation as in slavery), and there are only a few dozens of such languages known or suspected to have existed. It should not be suggested that this is the normal early stage of most languages, whic develop rather through genetic linguistic change. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]