Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 May 27

Language desk
< May 26	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27

Translating names of currency

I recently began to read a translation of A Doll's House where Nora borrows "four thousand and eight hundred crowns". Obviously, the "crown" in this play is the Norwegian krone, since Henrik Ibsen is Norwegian and that was the currency in use in 1879. Is it proper to translate names of currency in this manner if they correspond to a word in the local language? I don't think so, since I don't (or didn't) call them Mexican weights, Portuguese shields, Austrian shillings and its subdivision Austrian farthings, Croatian martens or South African edges. Still, I'd like a definitive answer. (I haven't finished yet, so if you answer please don't give away details of the later parts of the play.) Xenon54 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is common in English to refer to "Czech crowns" as opposed to "koruny" or "korunas." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We also convert the Russian копейка (kopeyka) into the pseudo-Russian-for-English-eyes "kopek". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Swedish and former Danish currency (krona and krone I think) are also often called "crowns" in English. Perhaps it's translated because the languages are Germanic and the etymology transparent, or maybe it's just because crowns are a type of British coin. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's because there is also a British coin called a Crown (British coin) (25 pence in new money). I have also seen Austrian shillings and Turkish pounds following the same rule. Alansplodge (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch gulden was similarly rendered into English as "guilder". The Polish złoty is not, although it has basically the same meaning, "golden". I wonder why the Slovenian tolar was never called "Slovenian dollar" in English. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Dollar is quite common. Austrian Shilling is also not entirely unknown. As a Finn, I always found it silly when foreign people tried to use the "native" name of the Finnish Mark. "Swedish Krona" also sounds somehow clumsy to me, though less so. And does anyone call Greek Euro Cents "Lepta"?--Rallette (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

People in Norway and Sweden, when speaking English, often call their currency the "crown". Why not? That's the translation of krona/krone in other contexts. It completely makes sense to me to use "crown" in English. And similarly "mark" for the old Finnish money (markka). Another one is Irish money: I've dealt with people in North America who want to call it a "punt", but people speaking English in Ireland (which is most of them) call it a "pound". --Anonymous, 15:33 UTC, May 27, 2010.

Technically, it's former Irish money. They have now adopted the Euro. Besides, very few people in Ireland speak any form of "Irish". - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, right, I forgot they use euros now. Sorry. --Anon, 16:50 UTC, May 28, 2010.

Well, very few people in Ireland speak Irish as their native language, but as much as 1/3 of the population speaks Irish fluently as a second language. Back when Ireland did use the pound, most people called it "pound" in most circumstances, but did call it the punt when it needed to be distinguished from the pound sterling; at least, that was my experience. +Angr 20:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Kopek

The above got me thinking. What do we classify the word "kopek" as? Most people would not regard it as an English word, as they would assume (incorrectly) that "kopek" is the native Russian word for this sub-unit of currency. Neither is it a Russian word - that's копейка (kopeyka). Neither is it a translation; more an anglicisation of the original Russian word into something slightly more English-sounding, but still not really English-sounding, and still not "English". Where does it fit, label-wise? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is an Anglicisation. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a loanword from Russian. Loanwords don't have to be as phonetically accurate to the source language's version be considered such.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. The examples given are: E music (from French "musique"); Sp. chófer (from French "chauffeur". These simply respell the word in a more English or Spanish way; they don't remove any syllables or otherwise fundamentally change the word's form, the way копейка (kopeyka) has become 'kopek'. Do we have other examples of words that have been borrowed from other languages and undergone a more radical change than simply a respelling? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Most words borrowed from Native American languages have been worn down and massaged into a shape that English speakers can wrap their tongues around. +Angr 21:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. "Loanword" sort of flies in the face of the usual sense of "loan", where the general expectation is that the thing in question is not the receiver's property but is ultimately returned to the giver, and in no worse a condition than when it was lent. The words we're talking about are gifts, or more likely thefts, but not loans. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A better metaphor would be a photocopy. Whether you call it a "loan", a "gift", or a "theft", it implies that the original owner is no longer in possession of it, which isn't the case with loanwords. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the country's done for. And anyway, sometimes loanwords are given back. English borrowed tennis from French tenez, and French got it back as tennis. Japanese borrowed animeeshon from English animation, and English got it back as anime. +Angr 13:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrupt photocopy, then. (Is that the term for something that's recopied till it loses some part of its original definition?) I guess "loanword" is somewhat more serviceable than "corrupt photocopy word".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The English name for the Polish currency is 'zloty' (from Pol. 'złoty'). Both the pronunciation and spelling have changed here. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Kopek (or kopeck which I believe I've also seen in English) might not look similar to the singular Russian копейка, but it's closer to the plural genitive копеек (kopeyek), which is used with numbers whose one's place digit is 0, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9, as well as numbers 11—14 (e.g., пять копеек, "five kopeks"). — Kpalion^(talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Very true, Kpalion. Yet, somehow I can't see that having had any role to play in the formation of our word "kopeck/kopek". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The OED makes no attempt to explain how "kopek" was borrowed from "копейка". All the spellings it lists, with the possible exception of one 18th century spelling "kapeke", end in a consonant. (I assume that "copique" actually ends in a consonant sound, and I think "kapeke" probably does as well). --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

renegate

[1]

What does "renegate" mean?174.3.121.27 (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Turncoat". It's basically the same word as renegade, derived directly from medieval Latin renegatus rather than through Spanish. Deor (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Munasinghe"

How is the name "Munasinghe" pronounced? I believe it is of Sri Lankan origin, if that helps at all. Thanks! 220.239.57.132 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You can hear this surname here: [2]--151.51.5.254 (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Watershed moment

Resolved

What's the origin of this use of the word, meaning a turning point/critical point or pivotal event ? StuRat (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The earliest use of the word in any sense—its "drainage divide" sense—cited in the OED dates to 1803, and the dictionary speculates that it was modeled on the synonymous German Wasserscheide, which came to be used in scientific writings around that time. The earliest figurative use cited is by Longfellow in 1878: "Midnight! The outpost of advancing day! ... The watershed of Time, from which the streams of Yesterday and Tomorrow take their way." Other cited examples of uses that refer to demarcations between periods of time are "a watershed of time between the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation" (1886) and "... the daily preoccupations of ordinary people who were living through the 'watershed period'" (1973). It's pretty easy to see how such uses could have led to the attributive use of the word to refer to a turning point, as in the citation "On the Town, which Kelly himself describes as a watershed picture" (1980). The OED doesn't record any examples of "watershed moment" specifically; perhaps that combination is too recent. (The use of the word, mainly in the U.S., to mean "drainage basin" rather than "drainage divide" perhaps obscures the image on which the figurative uses are based.) Deor (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I look for a song name

Hello everybody. I heard a song from my my friend who grew up in the 60s and 70s in Communist China but I do not know the name. I think two of the lines went something like "我们是飞行军" adn “没一个子弹消灭个敌人", but they may have been from different songs. Can someone help identify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.239.40 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything like that in Baidu; the phrase "我们是飞行军" got a lot of hits but none that looked like song lyrics. Variations of "每一颗子弹消灭一个敌人" also get some hits, but again no song lyrics. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I searched your clue on the google and the answer might be "游擊隊歌" ("the Song of the Guerrilla" youtube). luuva (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that looks like it just might be it. (So much for 百度更懂中文 ;) ). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese verb forms

Hi, I have some conflicting info about this stuff from different sources, and I'm hoping someone can clear it up.

1. I understand there are two ways of forming the potential form of -iru and -eru verbs (example: 着替えられる and 着替えれる). Are these interchangeable? If not, what is the difference?

2. The longer form of the potential (e.g. 着替えられる) appears to be identical to the passive form. Is that correct? If so, does this cause lots of ambiguity problems in actual use, or is the context usually enough to tell which is meant?

3. I have read also that the passive (e.g. 着替えられる) is sometimes cut down (to e.g. 着替えれる), thus making it identical to the shorter form of the potential. Is this also correct, and, if so, what is the difference between the "long" and "short" forms of the passive?

I hope this makes sense, and, if I've garbled any of it, I hope you can read through what I'm trying to ask. 86.184.237.39 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

Addition: I've just noticed that Japanese verb conjugations and adjective declensions mentions a "passive potential form". Is this yet another sense, different from both the passive and the potential? Now I'm even more confused! 86.184.237.39 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

1. They are interchangeable, however the shorter form is more colloquial.

2. Yes, it is correct that they are identical, but context usually supplies the meaning.

3. I cannot, off the top of my head, remember the passive being shortened, but if it is, then the difference would be the same as in Q1.

A 'passive potential' form would mean 'be able to be [eaten]'.

I hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your very helpful reply. Does the "passive potential" exist as a separate verb form, or is it constructed by somehow combining the passive and potential endings? Could you give any examples of how it is formed? 86.184.237.39 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

As for (3), I don't think the passive form is ever shortened that way, only the potential form. It's possible that the divergence with the potential is occurring because it makes that form distinct and unambiguous. As for your last question, the 'be able to be eaten' passive potential KageTora suggests is something I've never heard used and assumed would be bad Japanese, but a Google search for '食べられれる' suggests at least some people are trying to use those forms together. (However, I think the Wikipedia article is referring to something else.) Paul Davidson (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. 86.184.237.39 (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

There's no passive form 着替えられる. Because 着替える is an act only you can do. You may use 着替えさせる which means to order/force to change clothes and the passive form is 着替えさせられる. 汚れたTシャツを着替えさせられた/I was made/ordered to change my dirty T shirt. Or use 着せる. It means to dress/clothe/put on and the passive form is 着せられる。母親は赤ん坊に服を着せた/Mother dressed her baby. 赤ん坊は服を着せられた/The baby was dressed. As for the shortened form without ら, it's a fact a lot of native speakers use it, but it's grammatically wrong. So please do not use it. Oda Mari (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"There's no passive form 着替えられる". Then the example at Japanese verb conjugations and adjective declensions#passive needs changing. I must admit that when I asked the question I wasn't paying any attention to the actual meaning of the example verb. I was purely focussing on the grammatical verb endings. Thanks. 86.161.86.200 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

Well, actually, it didn't look strange to me either, probably because even verbs with no passive form used as passive can actually use the passive ending when used as an honorific or in the other use of the passive in Japanese where the action is deemed to be unwelcome or has a perceived negative impact on the speaker. I could see a possible context here where you were expecting your girlfriend, for example, to turn up to meet your parents in a lovely dress that she'd been wearing all day, but instead she had changed her clothes and turned up in a dirty t-shirt and ripped jeans, and this gave a bad impression. Here you could use 着替えられた, meaning roughly, 'she changed her clothes on me'. In this case, it is you, not her, who is the subject of this passive action. Japanese is funny that way. In a similar way, 死ぬ ('to die') has no passive, yet you can still say 犬に死なれた - 'my dog died on me', using the passive ending. Correct me if I'm wrong (Google gives 1.4 million hits for this exact phrase). Incidentally, the article linked to above calls this usage of the passive, the 'suffering passive'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction. Sorry, I meant 着替えられる cannot be used as a passive proper. But it also cannot be used as the example, as a suffering passive. 着替えられる is only used as potential and as a polite verb/a form of honorific. So the article is correct. Oda Mari (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, my example was the first thing I could think of in which this word might be used. To be honest, the 'suffering passive' is not used very often, but when it is, it is generally used with words that already inherently have a negative implication to them, such as 死ぬ ('to die') above. Anyway, thanks, Mari, for clearing that up. On a side note, I agree that the example in the article should be changed, as 着替えられる is a compound verb - 着る+替えられる - and having the first part there is unnecessary. It should be changed to a more common -iru or -eru verb, such as 食べる, and doing this would save us having this discussion again in the future. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)