Language desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 27

How old is the arabic language?

How old is the Arabic language? Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult, dare I say impossible, to say that a language is X number of years old. Language isn't something that has a specific time where you can put a thumbtack in the timeline of history and say "it started here". And then there's the question of what you mean by "Arabic". Do you mean modern Arabic or are you including classical Arabic? Either way, I think the article that you linked to goes over this fairly well and you'd help yourself reading it. Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised we don't have an article on the History of Arabic; that link is just a redirect to the very brief History section of the Arabic article, which discusses the earliest attestation of languages ancestral to Arabic. Going by earliest attestation is the only way questions like "How old is language X" make sense, except for a very few languages like Nicaraguan Sign Language whose birth can actually be pinned down to within a few years. Angr (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have "6th century BC" (c. 550 BC) in article "Ancient North Arabian" when pre-Classical Arabic also existed (as spoken language) but not found written until the 1st century BC, about 2050 years ago. It was important to the Recovery of Aristotle, after Catholic texts had warped the writings of Aristotle of Athens, to censor some ideas. -Wikid77 06:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's well over 50,000 years old, but at that time it wasn't distinguishable from Zulu, Dyirbal or Inuktitut. As for the original language of Allah, that was a dialect of Dutch, specifically Antwerpian Brabantic. μηδείς (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways to answer "How old is Arabic", and one way is to determine at what point in history the Arabic dialects split from their closest relatives within the Semitic family. But it depends on how you define "Arabic". If you include the entire Arabic language family, then you'd be looking for the date at which that branch parted company with the Northwest Semitic languages (which include Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.) If you were to adopt a somewhat stricter definition of "Arabic", then you might look for the later date when the ancestor of Classical Arabic split from the Ancient North Arabian dialects. LANTZY ^TALK 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But all joking aside, the real answer is that Arabic is older than the universe, because it's the language of the Qur'an, which precedes creation.LANTZY ^TALK 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Lingustic History of Arabic (Jonathan Owens, Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 9780199290826) seems to have some basic data, but I can't view the relevant pages. It reports on Proto-Arabic, Old Arabic, Neo-Arabic, "Stages in Arabic", etc - and has some reports and educated guesses on time periods as far I could see, which wasn't far enough to give a coherent summary reply. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did ideas stop having capital letters?

During the ...1930s-1980s, it was customary to capitalize generalized concept names, especially in philosophy ("Truth, Kindness, Beauty"), plus using capital letters when naming ideologies, movements or schools of thought. Examples: the Categorical Imperative, "the Automobile" as a concept, versus "the automobile in a garage" (etc.). I tried using Google Search about this issue, but too much clutter matched. When did most people stop capitalizing such names? Is there a name for this effect, such as the "lazy concept-punctuation movement" (or "yo-shrinkage of names")? I'll keep searching. -Wikid77 06:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at three phenomena, none having anything to do with the 1930s per se. First are Platonic ideas such as Beauty which are capitalized to signify their transcendent status. Second is the dated English practice of capitalizing nouns, still found in German, as one sees in the Declaration of Independence. Third is simple emphasis according the to style of the writer and editor. Editorial styles change. See capitalization. μηδείς (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche Letter in German

Resolved

In a letter to his sister explaining why he stopped going to church a young Friedrich Nietzsche says, "If you want peace of mind & happiness, have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search"

Could someone help me find the original phrase in German?68.49.141.96 (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)luos[reply]

According to Zeno, the line comes from a letter to Elisabeth Nietzsche, 11.6.1865, and reads in German: "willst Du Seelenruhe und Glück erstreben, nun so glaube, willst Du ein Jünger der Wahrheit sein, so forsche". Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picknit: "Jünger" should be capitalized (it's both an adjective, "younger", and a noun, "disciple", in German, and it's used in its noun role, hence capitalized). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 68.49.141.96 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)luos[reply]

Conocer-Saber distinction in Spanish

Hello all. On the internet I came across this sentence by a native speaker of Spanish (Ec.): 'Estoy aplicando a una beca y no sé la diferencia entre estos dos requerimientos'. I am confused: Why is it sé, and not conozco? If it helps I have more experience with French and I would use connais to translate (as opposed to sais), but maybe my French is not so good either. Saludos: --Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.98.102.191 (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it very simply, "saber" is used for knowledge of facts, "conocer" is used for acquaintance or familiarity. Here is a page that goes into some detail on the subject. LANTZY ^TALK 17:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks wrong to me. I'm a native speaker of German where we have the same distinction (between "wissen" and "kennen" respectively) and I'd put in "kennen" (conocer) in the above sentence. I just assume that even native speakers sometimes make mistakes.--Zoppp (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian also has the distinction (between a şti and a cunoaşte), but I would use a şti (saber) in that sentence. Maybe Romance languages work this way. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish also has two different verbs for "to know": tietää (to know that something is true) and tuntea (to be familiar with something/someone). There is a distinction of meaning between the verbs when applied to people. For example, I tiedän Tarja Halonen - I have followed enough of Finnish politics to be aware of the fact that she is the current President of Finland. However, I don't tunne her - we are not acquainted, I haven't had personal contact with her, and she very probably has never heard of me. JIP | Talk 19:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English used to have multiple "know" verbs as well: "to wit" and "to can" corresponded pretty closely to the German "wissen" and "kennen". But as for the OP's example sentence, it should certainly be "saber", not "conocer". As for a French translation, I would venture "...je ne sais pas la différence...". LANTZY ^TALK 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not conocer in Spanish. The French connaitre sounds fine to my four years of study but I would be taken aback at no conozco la diferencia unless there were some weird context for the statement. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does lack a certain je ne connais quois. LANTZY ^TALK 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(And I would have probably said, "pero no entiendo la diferencia..." μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I asked a colleague at work today who is a Spanish native speaker from Mexico and she said that in that sentence actually both "conozco" and "sé" are possible, probably with a slight stylistic advantage for "conozco".--Zoppp (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference in meaning between I do not understand the difference and I am not familiar with/do not recognize the difference. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like the difference between "I am not aware that there is any difference" and "I am aware that there is a difference but I don't know what it is"? JIP | Talk 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no conozco here to me is like saying I do know there is somebody by the name of Lady Gaga, and somebody by the name of Miley Cyrus, but I couldn't tell them apart for the life of me. That is more marked than just saying you don't know/understand the difference without further qualification. I am curious if Zoppp's informant would prefer entender here like I would. I am not a native speaker, but have been immersed since childhood and have been mistaken for a native speaker by other native speakers. If someone were to ask me what was the difference between X and Y, I would definitely answer no se and not no la conozco. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I won't be able to get back to her in the next couple of days but I'll probably be able to ask another native speaker on Saturday. If I get an answer you'll read it here first.

Oh right and she also said that in answering a question, "no sé" is a lot more common than "no (la) conozco" which supports Medeis' second point.--Zoppp (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I asked another native speaker (from Uruguay) yesterday and he said that the whole sentence didn't sound quite right to him. He thought it sounded like Spanglish - especially the word "aplicar" - and that he just simply would rephrase the whole thing. Anyway, when I asked him about "entender" he said that "no entiendo la diferencia" would indeed improve it a lot.--Zoppp (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, I wasn't even paying attention to the rest--aplicar here is definitely Spanglish. In Spanish it is more like to enforce. I would have used llenar una solicitud. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haben/sein distinction in German

The above question got me thinking about a distinction in German. German has two different auxiliary verbs for the past perfect tense: haben (to have) and sein (to be). For example:

Ich habe das schon gekauft. "I have already bought that."
Diesmal bin ich dort gelaufen. "This time I have run there."

This is something I have to remember every single time, because all of the three other languages I know fluently - my native Finnish, Swedish, and English - only use one auxiliary verb. In English at least, using "be" as the auxiliary verb rather than "have" changes the meaning so that the speaker is the target of the action, not its actor. I presume the same goes for Swedish. Finnish does not have a separate verb for "to have", but instead uses "to be" for all cases. It distinguishes between "actor" and "target" sentences with case and voice distinctions: If the speaker is the actor, the pronoun is in the nominative case and the verb is in the active voice. If the speaker is the target, the pronoun is in the partitive or accusative case and the verb is in the passive voice. So my question is, how can I know which German verbs use haben as the auxiliary verb and which use sein? The only rule I can think of is that verbs involving physical movement use sein. JIP | Talk 18:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, there are no rules in German :P Alright, there might be some, but for this distinction I'll give you an example of the craziness of German: in Austria you would say "ich bin dort gesessen", whereas in Germany (excluding the Bavarian and Alemannic areas, I think) you would say "ich habe dort gesessen" =)) This last variant is taken to be the norm, and you could put all of this off to dialectal differences, but I don't know... German and rules don't quite match, a lot of stuff has to be learned by heart (e.g. the articles). Then again, for this specific instance there might be a rule that I don't know of, so maybe someone else could enlighten you. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian, the broad rule of thumb is that intransitive (and reflexive) verbs take essere whereas transitive ones take avere. There are lots of exceptions, but among intransitive verbs, verbs of motion are especially likely to take essere.

Sometimes it depends on how the verb is used. For example sono corso a casa, "I ran home", but ho corso a lungo, "I ran for a long time/distance". (That's the exact example I remember from a textbook; I can't think of a better one.)

I generally understand that German is fairly similar. Presumably German adopted the rules of Late Latin along with a lot of the rest of its grammar. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of German, I never really had to learn this. I think the general rule is that verbs of motion form their past perfect with sein and all the others with haben; at least I can't think of any counterexamples right now. (So, Austrians think "sitting" is a form of motion. Makes sense, doesn't it?). --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some tips I found: http://german.about.com/od/verbs/a/German-Grammar-Tip.htm. Apart from the verbs of motion, it also mentions bleiben, werden, and intransitive verbs denoting a "change in condition or state" like erblühen. Unlike French and Italian, however, reflexive verbs in standard German always take haben. (Dutch is similar, with hebben/zijn, but to make the comparisons even more confusing, it sometimes has zijn with transitive verbs, e.g. "ik ben je naam vergeten"). Lesgles (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past participles are essentially adjectives. In the formation of perfect forms from transitive verbs the direct object is the object of the verb to have. "I have completed the work" < "I have the work, completed." Intransitive verbs such as come and risen take no objects, so the past participle is simply modifying the subject: I am come. Christ is risen. In modern times, the intransitive perfect verbs have been remodelled to follow the have construction. But forms with to be are still occasionally found, especially in older works. French, German and early modern English all follow the have/transitive be/intransitive-reflexive model. Note that the Russian past tense developed from a generalized perfect construction with to be, rather than to have. This is why one says on skazal, but ona skazala and oni skazali. Only the fact that the present form of to be is now omitted as understood makes this less than patently obvious. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out to the OP that, using the verb 'to be' rather than 'to have' with certain verbs does not necessarily change the meaning at all, c.f. "I am finished" vs. "I have finished" (in American English, at least - in British English we still have a distinction), "he is gone" vs. "he has gone", "the die is cast" vs. "the die has been cast". --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a difference in meaning between "the die has cast" and "the die has been cast" (think of the difference between "John has cast [the die]" and "John has been cast [in the title role]"). The word "been" is the past participle of "be", which is itself a form of the verb "is". So "the die is cast" is not an example of this "is"/"has" interchangeability. Gabbe (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not sure what you are trying to say. I did not write 'the die has cast', and your examples do not fit what I did write. I was talking about the present perfect, and how the verb 'to be' is sometimes used instead of the more usual 'to have'. 'To have been cast' is the present perfect tense of the passive mood of the verb 'to cast', by the way. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I misunderstood the point you were making. Gabbe (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrongfilter It's more complicated, cf. "Der Wasserhahn hat getropft." vs. "Das Wasser ist auf das Fensterbrett getropft." "Ich bin nach London gefahren." vs. "Ich habe den LKW nach London gefahren." Some grammar books say if an intransitive verb expresses a change of place you'll have to use "sein" otherwise "haben". Some books distinguish between "durative verbs" and "perfective verbs", e. g. "Die Rose hat geblüht." (durative) vs. "Die Rose ist erblüht." (perfective) There are some exceptions, of course, e. g. "bleiben" and "sein", both of them intransitive and durative: "ich bin geblieben" (not: ich habe geblieben), "ich bin gewesen" (not: ich habe gewesen). "Let the pupil make careful note of the following exceptions." (Mark Twain, The Awful German Language ;-) ): "anfangen", "beginnen", "aufhören", "enden" use "haben" though they are intransitive and perfective. A special case: "stehen", "sitzen" and "liegen": in the north people use "haben" in the south (not only Austria!) "sein". However, transitive and reflexive verbs use "haben" - mostly (some exceptions: eingehen, loswerden). Finally there are some verbs that change their meaning, their valency, cf. the example of "fahren" given above. Here are some of these verbs: brechen, laufen, springen, biegen, fliegen, heilen, irren, schießen, schmelzen, spritzen, stoßen, treten.

N. B.: It is also possible to say "Diesmal habe ich dort gelaufen." However, "sein" is more frequent.--91.12.213.215 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@91.12.213.215. "Diesmal habe ich dort gelaufen" is impossible. You mean "Ich bin nach London gelaufen." vs. "Ich habe in London Bestzeit gelaufen. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible but it's not very frequent. The Duden (Vol. 4) says: "Bezieht sich laufen aber auf die sportliche Betätigung und wird im Sinne von 'einen Lauf [im Wettkampf] absolvieren gebraucht, dann kann das Perfekt auch mit haben umschrieben werden". So if you talk about a race you can use "haben" ("Sie hat die 100 Meter gelaufen." Cf. your example or the Duden: "Sie ist/hat gelaufen. Die Staffel ist/hat fantastisch gelaufen."). Since we have no information about the context "haben" is also possible.--91.12.213.215 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My German teacher explained to us that it was about motion or transition. So then, he said, "Ich bin geflogen" means "I flew [in the aircraft]" and "Ich habe geflogen" means "I flew [the aircraft]". Other words that represent transition would be such things as "gehen" or "sterben". Falconus^{p t c} 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some rare examples in German in which the meaning of a perfect form with ‘’sein’’ is different from the meaning of the perfect form with ‘’haben’’. “Ich bin gebummelt” means “I (have) gone for a stroll”, while “Ich habe gebummelt” means “I (have) dawdled” or “I (have) worked slowly”, “I (have) done something more slowly than it would have been appropriate”.

Once a Bavarian told me that “Ich bin gesessen” meant “I (have) sat” while “Ich habe gesessen” meant “I have been in jail”. But in Northern Germany we say “Ich habe gesessen” in both cases. By the way, there is a German joke: “Wo war denn Ede in letzter Zeit?” – “Er hat gesessen” – “Woran hat es gelegen?” – “Er hat gestanden.” (Translation: ”Where has Ede been recently?” – “He was in jail” – “How come?” – “He has confessed” Part of the joke is that gestanden is the perfect participle of stehen (to stand), and it is the perfect participle of gestehen (to confess) as well). -- Irene1949 (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 July 27

Contents