Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 17

Language desk
< May 16	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 18 >

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.

May 17

Arabic translators in Dubai?

Hi, I have a friend who is interested in pursuing a career as a translator (Arabic to English) in Dubai. She has a fascination with the middle east and wants to work there. Would Dubai be a good choice for this? Is there a market for translators in Dubai? ScienceApe (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a market for translators everywhere, and you can even do it over the internet as a freelancer, no matter where you are. Check out Translator's Cafe. You need to register (free) and set up a user profile, uploading your CV. Then you will be notified by email of any jobs that come up. These emails come in daily (in my experience). Also, there are links to reputable agencies that will set her up with freelance work. Good luck!--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Several considerations in addition to the above: to make a career of translation, it's advisable to study it as a profession after first discovering whether you have an aptitude for it. The most effective and successful translators also have specialized knowledge of particular fields, meaning their workings beyond sheer vocabulary. The essence of translation is understanding the meaning expressed in the source text, then rendering that meaning in the target language at an optimal level of fluency (that is, as though the original were written in the target language). Translation is in writing, while interpreting (consecutive or simultaneous) is from a spoken source and most usually delivered orally but nowadays also in teleprinter-style (i.e. typed) format. Translation is usually into one's native rather than an acquired language. A translator who has a firm command of both languages but less than effective expressive writing skills will find work with an agency that provides editors, and earns commensurately less due to the expense of the extra work done by another. Working for an agency has the advantage of providing assignments, though the pay reflects the agency's cut. Inhouse jobs generally require knowledge of specific content. As for Dubai as a location or client base, that would depend on which variant(s) of Arabic your friend uses. It would be pragmatic to research the market based on demand for specific fields (hi-tech, marcom, etc.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction of the above: typed delivery of an oral source is called 'transcripting'.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed numbers

There's a construction that goes something like this:

<plural subject> <plural verb, usually "are"> a/an <adjective> <singular object>.

Some examples would be:

Swans are a defensive bird.

Granny Smiths are a cooking apple.

Men are a strange species. (This is perhaps a little different, as "are" here is interpreted as "constitute".)

Only pedants would take exception to them - and maybe not even pedants (I wouldn't know, I'm just guessing.) But how would they be described to a person learning English, who'd been taught that plural verbs take plural objects? Or perhaps more accurately, that singular objects are governed by singular verbs. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you just say "Swans are defensive birds"? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I probably would say that, but I know many others use the type of construction I've described. The question was triggered by a post at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Swans - can they break your arm?. As I say, I certainly don't object to it, but I wonder at its formal status. I seem to hear it most often with items of food: "Jonathans are a red apple, but Granny Smiths are a green apple". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are these people who are teaching that "plural verbs take plural objects? Or perhaps more accurately, that singular objects are governed by singular verbs"? Verbs are supposed to agree in number with their subjects, not their objects; and the copula doesn't even take an object. Deor (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But, as the above sentences are correct and Deor's rule also is true, the singular subject (Granny Smith are cooking apples) is really plural. Isn't this called plurale tantum in Latin?--Radh (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In English, I think that applies to words that exist only in plural form, such as scissors and trousers. There are no such words as scissor or trouser. But both swan and swans are available, as are both apple and apples. The versions I would tend to favour are (A) Swans are defensive birds (Clarityfiend's suggestion) or (B) The swan is a defensive bird. What we're dealing with, however, is a bit of each, the first half of A and the latter half of B. I've never heard the other option, The swan is defensive birds. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin - English translation

How would 'you are a dirty mermaid' be translated in Latin with correct grammar?.. I can find the literal translation but it doesn't include the grammar... And I know it doesn't really make sense on any language... Long story... Thanks for any help guys 83.33.74.51 (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As is usual with such questions, there's no easy answer. Is the literal sense of dirty meant, or a metaphorical sense? Does mermaid refer specifically to a being half woman and half fish (in which case I'm not sure that there's really a Latin word with the required denotation, though some folks have used siren or sirena with some such image in mind), or can it refer to a "watery tart" of fully human appearance (in which case naias or nympha might be best)? Deor (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably looking for something like "Es nympha sordida," but as Deor points out, you can get different translations depending on the exact sense you want.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to dirty in a metaphorical way as opposed to literal and some kind of spin on Siren works like spanish it's "tu eres una sirena sucio" or German "du bist eine dreckige meerjungfrau"... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.226.142 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then "Es nympha sordida" works. I guess you could substitute siren for nympha, since that's the word that has evolved to take on the meaning "mermaid" in the Romance languages, but siren in Classical Latin (and in the Odyssey) referred to a much more dangerous creature.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 21:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some writers of Latin in the Middle Ages, however, thought of sirens as fish-tailed women. I wonder whether that influenced the vernacular use or they themselves were influenced by the vernacular. Deor (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Formatting rules for lyrics

What are the rules for formatting lyrics (e.g. punctuation, capitalization, line breaking)? Do you break lyrics into lines based on grammatically where the sentence boundaries are, or do you do it based on how they are sung? Do you omit (some) punctuations? (If so, what do you omit and what do you keep?) If the correct line-breaking rule is based on how the lyrics are sung to the melody, how do you deal with lines that grammatically contain multiple sentences? Do you use end-of-sentence punctuations to separate them? --98.114.98.121 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One way to write down lyrics is to follow the conventions for poetry. Of course, there are various conventions for writing down poetry, but with more conventional songs, the lines are divided according to lines of melody, just as conventional poetry lines are according to meter more than meaning. You would usually capitalise each line, and there can be sentence breaks within a line. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PalaceGuard has it. The lines are based on melody and rhythm. Line breaks appear when there is a musical break or a metric pause, often with a rhyme. Like in poetry, the lines won't necessarily be even, or line up with grammatical functions (although they often will). Punctuation is usually kept, but full stops and commas can be left off when they finish a line. I don't think that there is a specific standard, so as long as there is consistency, there is not much chance of a dispute. Steewi (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Somoe artists – Pulp and Okkervil River to name two – always write their lyrics as prose. It gives an interesting spin on the lyrics, but it only works well if they are somewhat "literary" in tone. There's an example here from another artist (Peter Hammill). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Many songs are not quite grammatical, and thus impossible to punctuate properly; when in doubt, I omit punctuation at the end of the line. —Tamfang (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Speech scroll

What is the man saying in the speech scroll to the right? Speech_scroll#European_Medieval_and_Renaissance_speech_scrolls 78.146.103.200 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It says "ego sum angelus domini at te missus". PS: "Missus" does not imply that St Anne was his wife :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction: "ad te." If the OP wants an English translation, it means "I am an angel of the Lord, sent to you." Deor (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, the phrase is probably adapted from Luke 1:19. But interestingly, an even closer phrasing is from Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (chapter 2, verse 3). That's pretty weird. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is that weird? I thought a lot of medieval art showed familiarity with such gospels, particularly marian stuff. 80.41.33.31 (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right - I thought that Gospel was lost until recently, but apparently they knew it in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Trainee Customer / Sales Executive

Hello there, I have just come up with recent job circular which is about Trainee Customer / Sales Executive. After seeing that I have made an objective in my CV, but get confused with the statements in the subject area. I have written the following statements:

• To serve in a responsible administrative position at a well-structured organization and successfully apply acquired managerial and interpersonal skills to enhance organizational efficiencies.
  If I add the above captioned words in the statements then it look like:
• To serve in a responsible Trainee Customer position at a well-structured organization and successfully apply acquired managerial and interpersonal skills to enhance organizational efficiencies.
  So which one I should prefer? The latter one? Thank you--119.30.36.53 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This may not be the answer you're looking for, but neither version is very helpful to the person reading your CV. If you want to include an objective at all, it should help the person screening CVs to very quickly decide whether they have an opening that matches what you're looking for. Drop unnecessary adjectives and stick with only relevant and objective descriptions. After dropping what I consider unnecessary words, the only thing left in your objective is "a[n] administrative position", which, unfortunately, is ambiguous. ("Administrative" could mean "management" or "secretarial", depending on the context and organizational culture.) --98.114.98.121 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your version is too wordy. Look at the objective like as an answer to the question "What do you want to be when you grow up?" You are also misreading the function of the slant. (It's iffy and the spaces aren't helping.) They are looking for a trainee who would like to become an executive dealing with customer or sales matters. (They probably mean "customer sales" or "customer service and sales") Check the text of the ad and their website for what they really are looking for. You don't have to tell them that they are (think they are;-) a well structured company. You could go with something like "Customer/Sales Executive Trainee". If you put "Executive in Customer Sales" it could be misconstrued to mean you already have experience "Junior Executive in Customer/Sales" might resolve that. So far it's vanilla, you want to add one cherry. Select one key item that you'd like them to know about. Based on your phrase this might work: "Highly efficient Customer/Sales Executive Trainee" or "result oriented Junior Customer/Sakes Executive". Try to get as much feel for the style of the company as you can before you phrase this. They are looking for a good match (and so should you.) What some like, others think is over the top or too plain in the other extreme. It may be unfair that one word can decide so much, but it's one way to pick the the one they want out of the crowd. Don't sweat it, if you are a good match you're likely to get it right anyway. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Beware, I don't want to put you off, but be careful. When I left uni, I went for a job with exactly the same 'title', and it turned out to be door-to-door selling of bags. A lot of companies put 'executive' in to make it sound like you are doing something, then say 'management', because you are actually self-employed. They only supply the merchandise - you go out and sell them. I'm not saying this company is like that, but if it's a circular, it sounds suspect to me. I hope for your sake it isn't. Good luck, anyway! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ha ha ha ha. You are absolutely right about the matter. --119.30.36.49 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would simply say "To work for a good company making use of my interpersonal and management skills". The descriptions you gave above sound like empty management-speak which people in such positions will probably be aware of and dislike. I forget what the term is for phrases full of management jargon that mean very little. I sometimes see games where you can choose words from three columns of jargon to make management phrases which seem very impressive but mean very little. And in the UK, a job advert for a "Trainee Customer / Sales Executive" is probably going to be for a lowly salesman's job where you do telesales or sell double glazing with no managerial abilities required. The impressive job title is just to try to lure people to take an unpopular job with low status and low pay. If you are in the UK then apart from the corporate jobs I would also try for a job with the Civil Service - you get trained well, and experience a professionally run organisation, and the pay is better than average. During the job interview, try to give the impression of someone who wants to work hard, but without any pretentions or much ambition beyond the current job, as if you leave they will have wasted the training. 89.243.221.140 (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

According to his IP he is in Bangladesh.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Careful with too many assumptions on what the company style is. That's why I mentioned checking their site. While they may in practice despise people playing "buzzword bingo" (aka bullshit bingo) they could/would still be likely to hire someone who'd be able to play. Of course companies wouldn't want to hire people who look as though they won't stay long. Not showing enough ambition could be seen as a lack of enthusiasm or other hiring obstacle, though. You want someone who has at least some interest in moving up. OP is selling himself as a sales person here. "Working hard" could actually be seen as a lack of ability for that. (Check out [1] for example.) Be careful with describing the type of company you'd like to work for in you objective, unless it is very clear that that description fits the company you are applying at. ("a Fortune 500 company" flies, "well structured", "profitable" or "good" are too generic.) ...even if this may be a case of you getting put through to the "plant manager" - as soon as he/she is done watering the plants :-) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Alka-net or Green Alkan-et?

Which is the correct way of saying Green alkanet please? 78.146.103.200 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

/ˈælkəˌnɛt/, AL-kuh-net (AL like the male name). Source (there's a sound file there of its pronunciation you can listen to): [2]--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The sound file sounds like al-ka-net to me, and not al-kuh-net. The sound file may be from an American source, where words are often pronounced differently to those in British english. The Wikipedia article says "The word "alkanet" derives from Middle English, from Old Spanish alcaneta, diminutive of alcana....". I am unfamiliar with Spanish, so I assume that alcana would be said al-ca-na, and its diminutive therefore al-ca-net-a, rather than as it would be I think in french with the dimunitive -ette, making it perhaps al-kan-et. It seems a foriegn-sounding name for a British wildflower, I am not sure if it is native to Britain or not, but it seems to have increased in range greatly during the 20th century. 89.243.221.140 (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the second vowel "ka/kuh"; it's actually a neutral vowel. The Spanish diminutive would be [alkaˈneta].--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 21:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek translation

I was wondering if anyone would be able to translate this sign for me? The (painful) process of transcribing it into a machine translator got me "Mnnmeio Гερμaνώ Memorial on 29 August 1944", but I'm pretty sure I've got the Cyrillic letters mixed up, because Google Greece gives me the page that I can only assume means No results found when I try to search for the first part. Many thanks, --Kateshortforbob 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt someone with a knowledge of modern Greek will be along shortly. For what it's worth, on the basis of my somewhat rusty knowledge of the classical variety, I'd guess that it means something like "Memorial of the Defeat (or "Downfall") of the Germans, 29 August 1944." Deor (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Character transcription of first two words is Μνημείο Πεσόντων, which turns up lots of hits in Google. Can't find the stem of the second word in my modern Greek dictionary, but it appears to be a genitive plural participle form, which means "of the fallen"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense; I was connecting it with classical Greek πίπτω, of which the aorist participle is πεσών. Is that still a word in modern Greek? Deor (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably is morphologically archaic, since the verb tables in the back of my modern Greek dictionary don't hint at the existence of an aorist participle (and Modern_Greek_grammar is similar). AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, for the information. Unfortunately, we never managed to find the thing/place the sign was pointing to, but it's nice to know what it was about --Kateshortforbob 20:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sense of "world without end", Anglican liturgy

The phrase means, of course, for ever and ever, in saecula saeculorum. But how, precisely, does "world without end" translate to "for ever and ever"? Greetings 85.180.205.252 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also curious about this, and about how in saeculo saeculorum came to have its liturgical usage in the first place. Anyone know? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an element of idiom here. The corresponding expression in Hebrew prayers is לעלם ואד ("le-olam va-ed" - not completely certain about my spelling) which is literally "to world and eternity". --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth (probably not much) the Spanish translation is "siglos de los siglos", - centuries of centuries. Which carries the sense of a very long time. Richard Avery (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

World seems to derive from Gmc. "*wera-" (man) and "alði-" (age, life span), so it refers, etymologically, to "a man's life(span)", a period of time. In the Middle Ages, in saecula saeculorum came to be translated as in world(s) of world(s), later as world without/buten/abuten end. All this according to SOED and an etymological dictionary. (Buten meant "outside".)

(The more recent construction, I would like to speculate, might have arisen because the Hebrew construction parallelling sanctum sanctorum, vanitas vanitatum etc. no longer sounded familiar, but this is highly speculative.) Bessel Dekker (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If updating the liturgy into modern language, one may say "To infinity and beyond!" (Or maybe not...) +Angr 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this suggestion! In fact, modern liturgy sometimes uses 'and in/unto the age of ages' as a closer, yet also somewhat clearer, rendition of the Latin. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you! Might the phrase be worth an entry in Wictionary? And/or an explanatory sentence in World Without End (supposing the title of the movie is indeed an allusion to liturgy)? Greetings 85.180.200.193 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of 'may' and 'might' in this sentence

Consider the following sentence: "May I ask why you think I ... so I might explain my statements?"
Especially the use of 'might' puzzles me here, but I assume it is correct. I would also think that 'can' would be acceptable, but how about 'may'? Thanks, decltype (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a fossilized usage of the subjunctive in English. May would be the subjunctive auxiliary, and the past tense of may would be might. The subjunctive was employed (among other instances) in a subordinate clause indicating purpose, here, "so (that)...statements." With what the OP has given us, may would be more appropriate since the beginning is present tense, but maybe the subordinate clause is past because of a verb in the edited portion (with the ellipsis). It's also worth noting that more modern language that tries to mimic this old construction often does it wrong (by traditional standards). In addition, may at the beginning is not (sorry, this is way I should proofread before I post) the same as may that is used as a subjunctive auxiliary; they serve different functions.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping the ellipsis wouldn't cause any ambiguities. The complete sentence was (equivalent to). "May I ask why you think [that] I have a negative impression of you so [that] I might explain my statements?", which hopefully makes it clear, that the subordinate clause did not occur in the past. Then, if I understand correctly, may should probably have been used instead? I have also inserted two thats into the sentence. To me, the first that would be redundant, but I feel that the second that does add some clarity. I would really like to hear the opinions of a native speaker on this.

One last thing: Did you intend to write "... may at the beginning is not the same as may ..."? Thanks, decltype (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference in the use of "may" between BE and AE. It's used instead of "can" in polite form. The tool it's used here as is to establish formality and distance because the speaker feels a bit offended that the other party has this misconception. The first "may" is requesting permission (to ask). The speaker isn't really looking for permission, though. They're not expecting "yes, you may" it's just a tool to indicate that they consider the other party's feelings in the matter and don't want to come right out and ask "why?". The second form of may "might" raises the stakes of formality even higher. It would not be idiomatic to use a second may here. It takes the place of "could possibly". Although the formal form in this case is used as a tool, in the US it is still in common use. Despite the increasing influx of BE through TV differences remain. While in the UK it's quite o.k. to ask a customer "Can I help you?" there are countless posters near phones in the US reminding employees to ask "How may I help you?" 71.236.24.129 (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We had a teacher at school, who was pedantic about the difference between "can" and "may"/"might". If a child asked to remove his blazer using the word "can", he would invariably respond "of course you can". Any subsequent attempt to remove said item of clothing would result in a roar from the teacher, enquiring what the poor kid was doing. "But sir, you said I could!" would be responded to with "I said that you could, I never said that you might", the teacher's take being that given that the child was not physically impaired and therefore obviously "could" remove his jacket. Just not without permission.

Incidentally, if a kid asked "Sir, may I remove my jacket?", he'd usually ask what today's date was. He had an arbitrary date (possibly May 1st - I forget) only after which permission would be granted. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So from your amusing anecdote I assume that your old schoolteacher would not approve of 'can' in the latter half of the sentence I posted? :) decltype (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think not so emphatically. He'd have probably argued "might" is more correct, but "can" would not be totally inappropriate, as you cannot know for sure unless it's explained. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were that pedantic, and a child asked me "Sir, might I remove my jacket?", I'd answer "Under what circumstances? You might remove your jacket if you felt warm, or if someone asked you to." I too had a pedantic schoolteacher who, when someone said "I'm done" would reply, "How long have you been cooking?" She insisted on "I'm finished". +Angr 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Our introduction to him was that he wrote his name on the blackboard in a huge and splendid cursive script, whirled round and proclaimed "that's my name, it's pronounced "sir"". A memorable character. I'm not short of anecdotes about him! --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not for use of may, but for use of can: if you asked my aunt "Can you help me?" She'd reel off: "I would if I could but I can't so I won't." Very few of the other kids needed an explanation that they should have asked "could" to avoid this response. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that teacher would have made more sense to insist on I have finished. —Tamfang (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)