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]

Are native Arabic speakers required to also know Quranic Arabic?[edit]

As far as I know, Arabic-speaking people may either speak in their regional dialect to communicate with locals or Modern Standard Arabic to communicate by writing and formal speeches, even though Quranic Arabic is regarded as the superior form of Arabic. So, does this mean that all native-Arabic-speaking people must also learn Quranic Arabic through study of the Quran? Do Arabic speakers use Quranic Arabic in otherwise conversational dialogue like how Japanese and Chinese may use four-character idioms in normal, everyday speech so some understanding of Quranic Arabic and the history are necessary to get the meaning? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "required" is supposed to mean in this context, but Muslims certainly need to know Qur'anic Arabic to read and fully understand the Qur'an, while those who want to develop Arabic-language literacy need to know some Modern Standard Arabic (which is similar to the language of the Qur'an, but not really the same). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. using colloquial vernacular Arabic together with MSA is what some linguists would call "level-mixing". It probably should be included in the Stylistics article, but that seems to be almost purely about literary criticism. It's briefly alluded to in the Code-mixing article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "required", I mean certain phrases from bygone times are inserted into colloquial dialogue. In the Chinese language, most educated Chinese speakers use four-character idiomatic expressions that may be extracted from Classical Chinese texts. I think English speakers do the same thing with Shakespeare and the King James Bible. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

1) While a high percentage of Arabs are Muslims, not all are.

2) Most Muslims are not Arabs, living in nations like Iran, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, so may not speak Arabic at all.

3) From the crazy portrayals of the writings in the Quran by ISIS and others, I get the impression that those followers must not actually read the Quran themselves, but just rely on the (mis)interpretations of others. I am reminded of the medieval period where the Catholic Church "interpreted" the Bible to say whatever was in their interest, such as supporting the Crusades and the selling of indulgences, and rigorously opposed it being written in common languages. Hopefully most Muslim leaders don't oppose this, but I suspect that ISIS does. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We have a Bible translations in the Middle Ages article, which is not perfect, but better than "StuRat's Impressions Desk". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't attack other editors in front of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the link supports my contention that common language versions of the Bible were rare then. Meanwhile, we are drifting farther from the OP with such discussions, so I will box it up. Adam, if you really want to discuss all the aspects of the availability of Bibles in common language in the Middle Ages, then open a new Q. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not support your contention at all; no one cares about your contentions; your contentions are irrelevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As are your personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, where many British Muslims have a South Asian heritage; "Muslim children who attend community or church schools typically also attend mosque schools or other supplementary schools outside normal school hours in order to receive education in Islamic beliefs and practices... Many Muslim parents would appreciate the option for their children to study Arabic in school, and also for them to receive a form of Religious Education that gave them more opportunities to enrich their understanding of their own faith as well as studying others" (British Muslims and Education p. 105). Anecdotally, at least some of my Scouts who are Muslims attend after-school classes which include studying Arabic, but it seems to be at a most rudimentary level. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some traditions of Madrasa study, the largest part of elementary education is taken up by mechanical recitation of Qur'an verses, sometimes without much concern with whether or not the boys understand very well what they're reciting. But 50.4.236.254 made it clear that he was asking about native Arabic-speakers. AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here seems to be making the same mistake: The OP never mentioned practitioners of Islam, and yet every answer seems to be discussing why Muslims may learn Quranic Arabic. The OP merely asked about Arabic speakers; most Muslims are not native speakers of modern Arabic. --Jayron 32 16:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was my point 2 above. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non Muslim Arabs, (e.g. Chaldeans, Copts, Maronites and Syrian Orthodox Christians etc., would probably object to learning the Qu'ran. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of "great straits"?[edit]

I am translating the article Paionia from en:wp to da:wp, but in the article Audoleon it says: In a war with the Illyrian tribe Autariatae he was reduced to great straits, but was succoured by Cassander. What is the meaning of "great straits"? IvarT (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impoverished situation "straightened circumstances". 82.14.24.95 (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is "straitened circumstances" - beware of muddling straight and strait. Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Often the phrase is "dire straits" but either way, it means a bad situation, almost hopeless. See, [1]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was very helpfull.IvarT (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IvarT: Just be aware, since both forms appear above, that "strait" comes through French for strict, while "straight" is from the Old English past participle stretched -- the two are not closely related or interchangeable. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a "strait" is a narrow place, where as "straight" is an adjective that means "linear". Thus, one is in "great straits" when one is being pinched in a "tight situation". "Straight" as a noun is usually marked in specialized usages, and very rare in common speech, thus "great straights" is odd. If it is being used as a noun, it's probably "strait". --Jayron 32 13:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An archaic form of "strait" is "straight" or (in Spenser and Milton) "streight". Matthew 7¹⁴ may have something to do with it. The verse reads:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Hence the expression "straight and narrow". 92.8.218.38 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply wrong. The two words are distinct, neither strait nor straight is a version, archaic or otherwise, of the other word. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers Dictionary (12th edition, ed. Mary O'Neill), London 2011 ISBN 978-0550-10237-9 says on page 1537:

strait, also (old or non-standard) straight or (Spenser and Milton) streight ...

Oxford English Dictionary gives many varieties of "strait", including streyghte, streyght, streight, streighte, straight, strayght(e), streigt. Varieties of "straight" include straitt, straite. and strait. The two meanings of tightening and stretching are opposed. "Strait-laced" is the former, but "straight-laced" is just as common. 92.8.223.3 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a misspelling or ignorance is common or attested (e.g., "Tow the line") doesn't make it correct or relevant. I could care less about spurious spellings like foetus. The fact remains the words have two different origins, meanings and historically justified spellings. The French word never had a guttural and adding it by mistake out of ignorance because it is now silent is adding it by mistake. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "that"[edit]

In a recent post here, I wrote "I'd say we don't need to consider the singular form here to make it specific". Question: Could I add "... since it will also stay that with the plural" here (with "that" referring to "specific")?--Cleph (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, but I'd find it confusing to read. I'd prefer to repeat the word "specific". --69.159.60.147 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong. The proper word would be an adverb, either so or thus. "That" is a pronoun or a conjunction, and entirely incorrect (not to be too harsh on @Cleph:). μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that way may be a viable alternative, too. --31.154.101.236 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or "like that". I was trying to avoided periphrasis and give the OP the acceptable single-word alternatives rather than phrases. The periphrastic forms "that way / like that" are definitely more common than thus or so in colloquial speech. μηδείς (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German inversion = English inversion?[edit]

Lately, on German television, I heard the phrase "Mit diesem Mann musste ich unbedingt reden" and wondered whether the inversion could be copied in an English translation (e. g. "this man I had to talk to"). However, Google didn't show any corresponding results. Is there a way to give a most faithful possible [← is that a correct expression of superlative?] translation reproducing the inversion?--Cleph (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are contexts in which "this man I had to talk to" would be appropriate usage in English, though some pedants might consider it marginally informal. We would say "the most faithful possible translation". Dbfirs 15:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See verb-second which applied historically as much in English as German given their common roots. "Mit diesem Mann" counts as a single element, hence the verb comes as the second element. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pretty standard word order in the original German, so using a non-standard construction in English would convey the wrong impression. I would simply translate it as: "I absolutely had to talk to this man". --Xuxl (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work in a sentence like this: "this man I had to talk to crossed the road and walked around the corner". Akld guy (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same case, Akld. In the German, the inversion is one of emphasis, and "I/ich" is still the subject. In your case, the man you had to talk to is the subject. So the example given is OVS while your example is still a type of SVO. μηδείς (talk)

As far as conveying impressions, as always, translation would depend on context (i.e. who is speaking these lines and in what situation). This construction is a form of topic-comment, see examples at topicalization. It is common in some situations and is prevalent in a few English subcultures; notably, it is a feature of stereotypical Ashkenazi "Jewish English" and yeshivish. (WP:OR): I heard this construction a lot in the tri-state area. So a "faithful" translation will depend on context on a case-by-case basis.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Dbfirs: there are contexts in which "this man I had to talk to" would be appropriate usage in English, though some pedants might consider it marginally informal. Hello, (part-time) pedant speaking. Yes, it sounds informal to me. A question arises: Is the relative clause integral ("defining") or supplementary ("non-defining")? If integral, then why also "this"? If supplementary, then we'd instead expect ", who(m) I had to talk to," or similar. I'd say it's unlikely to be supplementary and is instead integral -- and then the "this" doesn't sound at all superfluous. That's because "this" here doesn't have its core use (definite + proximal). Instead, it sounds likely to have its use (seen in anecdotes) of specific (and not necessarily definite) + proximal. ("So I'm sitting in the train, reading Bulwer-Lytton and minding my own business, when suddenly this bloke I've never seen before comes up" etc etc.). And this use of "this" is informal. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the usage you quote is very informal and not the usage I had in mind. One might imagine Zacchaeus, on hearing about Jesus, exclaiming "This man I have to see!". This inversion I would use. (My mention of pedantry was in relation to the rule from Latin "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with" which I follow only in (rare) extreme pedantry mode.) Dbfirs 06:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much so far! @WilliamThweatt: Assuming we want to find a more or less universally applicable standard English equivalent, i. e. not too "subcultural" as within your examples, would there be an alternative to reproduce the emphasis?--Cleph (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With this man, I~~'ve~~ absolutely had to reason ~~with~~. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... with double "with"? This repetition I've no time for! Dbfirs 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it was a hasty oversight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Sorry for picking up the error -- I realised what had happened. I have the same problem, not knowing where to put the preposition. Dbfirs 21:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasmic Physics: But that would just be another example and still not standard usage, right?--Cleph (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinairily, people wouldn't use such a strange sounding inversion in English. However, it may be apt in the case where one desires to emphasise this man, instead of another, and when the description of the action as reasoning is less important, which would depend on the context that the statement was made in. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tabari[edit]

Following our article, I corrected the writer's full name in Muawiyah I to Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī. Another editor has changed "Jarir" to "Jabir". The name is also given in Arabic, but I don't speak Arabic. Who is correct? 84.9.194.88 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarir is correct. Omidinist (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special term for opposite vertexes of a cube[edit]

We know about the terms "cater corner", "catty corner", and "kitty corner". Each of these is an acceptable way of saying "diagonally opposite". ("Caddy corner" is incorrect unless you have someone holding golf clubs in the corner.)

But the term implies the number 4. Suppose we were to think of 3 dimensions; we need a similar term that derives from the number 8 attached to the word corner. What would this be?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've never heard any of those terms used here in the UK, but apparently they used to be common in certain British dialects. Why can the same term not be used for a cube? The corner would be the opposite corner of the square formed by diagonals of faces of the cube. I would also question any necessary connection with French quatre. The origin of cater is more probably the verb to catre going back at least to 1577 and meaning "To place or set rhomboidally; to cut, move, go, etc., diagonally" according to the OED, so it could equally mean the opposite corner of a cuboid or even a parallelepiped. Dbfirs 19:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a cube, but for a hexagon, we have the terms "ortho", "meta", and "para", used in chemistry, since hexagons come up quite often there. In this case, "para" is the opposite vertex. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Space diagonal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) When studying symmetry for chemistry or crystallography, we would describe these as vertices on the Body diagonal. Opposite corners of a face of a cube would be vertices on the Face diagonal.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term catty-corner exists because it's a convenience for describing things. Like if I'm on the southwest corner of an intersection, I might describe a building on the northeast corner as catty-corner to where I am. Can the OP think of a common situation where a term would be needed to describe something that's across the diagonal and at a 45 degree angle upward? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 National Security Agency illegal seizure[edit]

Request: Can someone please do a search of the Korean Internet to see if there are any references or awareness of this even? Trying to make the article more complete. Muzzleflash (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX may be helpful for you too. --Jayron 32 11:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]