Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 September 20

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.

September 20

Est-ce que c'est vraiment dur d'être aimé par les cons? (The C-Word)

Looking for a fair use image for the article Charlie Hebdo I came across this: http://arunwithaview.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/charlie-hebdo-mahomet.jpg The English translation strikes me as so obscence I wouldn't use it. It's the only word of the seven dirty words you won't hear me use under any circumstances. Our article on it says it is the most shocking and unusable of English words. Is con not so bad in French? How could one judge, or tell what might be worse? μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess not. It is the name of a restaurant in Montreal. Bielle (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And Andreanne Mallett has a cute song about Les Cons. I am going to check my primordial French dictionary as I am not seeing examples of any rude translation yet. Bielle (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cheese and crackers. (Avec du smegma?) μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

According to my MicroRobert, "con" and "conne" are just "vulg" for "imbécile and "idiot". "Fools", in other words. While I don't call people "idiots" very often, whatever the provocation, I wouldn't call it one of the seven unspeakables. Where is the source of your translation? Bielle (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess another very related question is, is the French con a borrowing from Germanic or a reflex of the Latin cunnus and cognate with the Spanish coño? μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My "source" is personal experience and etymology online and google translate. The Spanish coño has the same meanings as the British sense of the word, but is used a heck of a lot more than the English word in America. I know the word is not so bad in British English as it is in American, and is used there simply to mean idiot, while if said in America I would expect it to come to blows. I have to assume at this point the image I linked to for Charlie Hebdo is using it as idiot as well, although I first took it to mean what it would mean in America. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The c-word is highly obscene in British English. People who speak in a stream of foul language might use it to mean no more than "idiot" I suppose, but dropping it into polite conversation would be something like detonating a small nuclear weapon. 86.183.1.88 (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly take your word for it that it's nuclear, since it is in the US, but I believe I have heard it used in British TV (i.e, "silly/stupid c*nt") where it would never be used in American TV at all, and almost never in movies. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Tucker of The Thick of It certainly drops the c-bomb now and then, and he's not unique in British TV. There was even an episode of Balderdash and Piffle, the BBC dictionary/etymology documentary series, with a section about the word 'cunt', which aired before (or perhaps just after) the 9pm watershed. And a couple of years ago BBC Radio accidentally referred to Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, as 'Jeremy C!nt, the Hulture Secretary', and then did so again while apologising. All during regular daytime broadcasting - and while the apology was certainly necessary, no-one was fined or fired about it. We're a lot less touchy about this stuff than US broadcasters. As for 'con', I'd say 'twat' was a fair translation in terms of strength, connotation, and so on. 'Schmuck' seems too mild, c$nt too strong. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, except Dinner for Schmucks was a remake of the French film Le Dîner de Cons. --Jayron32 11:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that. I meant that, at the time, it struck me as a wildly imprecise translation. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Way down this page of possible meanings, most of which are terms like "bloody idiots" or "stupid jerks" is a possible use as "twat". I somehow doubt that is the best translation for the example you gave in the beginning, but perhaps a native French speaker would care to comment. Bielle (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Twat" is a commonly used if slangish Australian synonym for that part of the female anatomy. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Con" means "ass" or "arse" in French, and has the same level of profanity, which is to say not much at all. If you call someone "un con", you're calling them an ass: not a polite thing to say, but not all that obscene. The french word that probably contains the same level of obscenity when directed at women as the English "c-word" is "putain", which roughly translates as "whore". The naughty French slang word for female genetalia is "la chatte". I'm not a native French speaker, but I have native French speakers in my immediate family, enough to pick up on things like this. --Jayron32 05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But have people not seen the brilliant Le Dîner de Cons (film)? Apparently there's an English language version Dinner for Schmucks, but it can't possibly match real French farce de nos jours. Fr.wiki has an article on Con, the essence is that the word has now settled down to mean simply "idiot", ruder than idiot but not unacceptable. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm French native speaker and "con" only means "stupid" in French, nothing to see with the English word. You won't use it to talk about your boss when he's there, but in his back I don't think your colleagues would be too angry. Amqui (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What about Louis Aragon's Le Con d'Irène? That seems to have the same anatomical connotation as the English word. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It can have that sense, but it simply isn't as vulgar as the English word. When used to describe the female anatomy, it probably doesn't carry any more weight than "hoo-haa" or "cooter" or other such words: informal, maybe a tad rude in some contexts, but not outright vulgar or obscene. It just doesn't have a vulgar sense in French. --Jayron32 11:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree; even almost 27 years ago, when I went to school with french pupils, we used it all the time..."qu'il est con, ce mec"...etc., and it had no real vulgar meaning just then. Lectonar (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And the word is frequently used on French television without any censorship or bleeping. --Xuxl (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a con in French seems to me to be about as strong as calling them a dick in Emglish. I wonder how strong French words for the male genitalia as insults are? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Couillon is slightly stronger than con, but not by much. --Xuxl (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is anything actually censored on French TV? This week there have been commercials in the middle of the day for Basic Instinct on France 3, including the shot of Sharon Stone's, er, chatte. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And even here we have this ;). Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

...and the French equivalent of that Meta article is entitled Ne jouez pas au con. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

:) Live and learn. Lectonar (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Pondian difference I've noticed about cunt as a person-directed insult is that in British English it's usually applied to men, and in American English it's usually applied to women. Angr (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In French the word con has at least two meanings, see the CNRTL. Meaning A: the external female genitalia. It is a very vulgar to use it (obscene word). Meaning B: a fool, a stupid (male) person. No sexual connotation for this meaning. It is used in an "uneducated speech". It is almost a colloquial word. There is a famous quote from a former French President: Casse-toi, pauvre con !. — AldoSyrt (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems very French. After all, baiser has two meanings, one innocent and one very vulgar. --Jayron32 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard the word "con" used to talk about the female genitalia and I live in French. Amqui (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Me neither...and I am quite sure it would at least be used in school if it was really common...Lectonar (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The "usual" word nowdays is chatte, but con is fully understood by a majority of French. If you live in France you can have a look at Sur l'album de la Comtesse, every week in the Le_Canard_enchaîné, which is dedicated to cryptic spoonerisms, where con is often used (in an hidden way, indeed). AldoSyrt (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of how forbidden the word is: The Police Rehumanize Yourself lyrics: "Billy's joined the National Front He always was ( just) a little runt. He's got his hand in the air with the other cunts. You've got to rehumanize yourself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.53.153 (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Croatian language

Dear Sirs, Why at you web page site (screen) does n't have the name "croatian" language (like slovenščina, makedonski, srpski)? Thank you very much! Zvonimir Pandžić 23000 Zadar, Croatia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.92.201.90 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Croatian version of WP is available with the prefix "hr.", eg this article. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your question. If the Croatian WP has no equivalent to the reference desk then there will not be a link in the "languages" list on the left margin of the page. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) and the Croatian-language Wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org) are run separately and independently, having no control over each other. Many other Wikipedias are available, see right here for a full list; all of them are being written and maintained by volunteers from all over the world. If you notice that a topic is already covered in some languages, but not yet in Croatian, you are welcome to write an article for the Croatian Wikipedia on that topic, so long as you wish to do so. Check out Pomoć: Sadržaj, a portal with some useful links, if you're interested in editing the Croatian-language Wikipedia. --Theurgist (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

At www.wikipedia.org, which is not en.wikipedia.org you indeed don't find the word 'croatian', but 'hrvatski', which is probably fine, for people who speak croatian. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We have millions of pages and you didn't say which one you refer to. Rather than guessing let me ask: Which page is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Center of Attraction

Is there a "single word" that would have the same meaning as "center of attraction"?
Examples

• When she enters the room, she is the "center of attraction" because of her beauty.
  
• When you go to a quaint old town, often times the "center of attraction" is the town's clock. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The phrase I usually hear in that case is "center of attention". If you want a single word, "centerpiece" fits. --Jayron32 18:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a word but it's rather uncommon: cynosure. Also, while I think it can be used in the first of the sentences you mentioned in your posting in place of centre of attraction, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to use it in the second sentence. You could simply use the word focus as well. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Magnet might work in certain contexts. Lesgles (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Or Mecca. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Focus. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that a command directed at me? I only ask because "focus" as a response to the question has already been suggested. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Got distracted when I clicked on the link for cynosure, since I always though that meant dog's tail. But it is always good advice. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha, ha! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again boys.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Arabic help

Hi! What is the Arabic in the image http://www.ummto.dz/IMG/siteon0.gif ? (the image changes between Arabic, French, and Tifinagh) - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

جامعة مولود معمري - تيزي وزو Lesgles (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Mouloud Mammeri University - Tizi Ouzou" ? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mouloud Mammeri University - Tizi Ouzou. --Theurgist (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

is straits plural or singular

Straits. Is the word singular or plural? Does it matter if you are talking about a particular name. as in "Straits of _______" or "_______ Straits"? Is it done differently in different varieties of English? (In short, straits is or straits are? Straits is, or Straits are?) Thanks Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one of those oddball words (like pants) which is conceptually singular but grammatically plural. Just as you'd say "My pants are too short", you'd say "The straits of Gibraltar are between Spain and Morrocco". (And yes, before anyone objects, I understand that pants have two legs. But its still one object, and if you held one up, people would identify it as one, and not two, things.) --Jayron32 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE: The proper term for "oddball words" like glasses, scissors, and so on is "pluralia tantum". Gabbe (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But Wikipedia redirects a request for Straits of Gibraltar to Strait of Gibraltar. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Which reinforces that the "straits" form is an acceptable usage. --Jayron32 06:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What intrigues me is why it's sometimes "strait" and sometimes "straits". It's always just the one body of water. In any given case there's no way of predicting what it's going to be if you didn't already know what the chosen term is. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, people who are in trouble are always in dire straits, always plural. I suppose if one really bad thing happened to you that day, it would be a dire strait? --Jayron32 22:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Some etymology might be useful:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. That is a useful thing to consider. Perhaps, the issue arises, in the context I was thinking about because the namers of straits need not be persnickety about whether the are naming one or more things, (See also, Straits of Magellan or Bering Straits). So, the word straits is plural but may be used in reference to a single thing. But if anyone has more usage or grammar thoughts, those would be welcome, of course, particularly the history of how this came to be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, both of your examples are better known by their "Strait" (sing.) versions, which is how both articles are titled. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm wondering if there is an archaic usage thing going on from the pre-twentieth century, when these things were not typically viewed from above. The Megellan for example has several navigable passages, at least in part. Other straits are different, but at water level, perhaps, most straits appear so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The OED (2012 online) has a special note about this in the entry about strait in the waterway sense: When used as a geographical proper name, the word is usually pl. with sing. sense, e.g. the Straits of Dover , the Straits of Gilbraltar (formerly †the Straits of Morocco ), the Straits of Magellan , the Straits of Malacca , and the Straits as short for any of these; with regard to Bass('s) Strait(s) , Torres Strait(s) , usage is divided, while Davis Strait rarely appears in the plural form. The use of the pl. for the sing. began in the 15th c. A few writers, chiefly of gazetteers, use the sing. consistently throughout.

Wikipedia seems to mostly "use the sing. consistently", with some exceptions like Straits of Florida, Straits of Tiran, Straits of Johor, Kanmon Straits, and of course Straits of Mackinac. General list at List of straits. Pfly (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that make us 'gazetteers', and "singular sense" means, 'Straits is', I take it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

with regard to Bass('s) Strait(s) , Torres Strait(s) , usage is divided -- Huh? I have never in my life, ever, heard or seen Bass Strait or Torres Strait called or written any other way but Strait. And our articles make no mention of Straits. If the OED recorded Straits, presumably they didn't just make it up. But I fear they are way out of date with this, and that the plural versions are definitely archaic and obsolete. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"The moon is out to trust"

Esther & Abi Ofarim sang: "In the morning when the moon is out to trust": But I don't understand what "the moon is out to trust" means. Can you help me? Irene1949 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it sounded nice when they sang it? Sometimes, lyrics are chosen for how they sound and not for what they mean. Lots of songs use phrases and words that seem nonsensical, but sound nice when said in particular songs. The fancy term for this is "Prosody", and song writers may make word or phrase choices based more on "prosody" than on actual meaning. Sometimes they even invent words just to fit the song (like looptid and pompatus). Sometimes, if asked, the song writers can come up with some justification for what it meant, but in this case there is not any onbvious english idiom that makes any sense with that lyric, at least that I have ever heard. --Jayron32 21:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you Google the song "In the Morning", the results for Barry Gibb's original lyrics consistently come up as "In the morning when the moon is at its rest". That would make much more sense, and rhymes with the following line: "You will find me at the time I love the best". I would suggest that Esther and Abi are probably singing just that, and the lyrics transcribed online are a mishearing that has been copied from site to site over time. - Karenjc 22:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And then there's that. See mondegreen for the technical term of what Karenjc is talking about. --Jayron32 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a slot on a BBC Radio 1 programme, in which listeners could send in their mis-heard lyrics. My favourites were "Bald headed woman" and "Beneath the knees". Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The girl with colitis goes by. Classic Lennon-McCartney off-day. - Karenjc 20:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems Barry Gibb has the same mother as I do. Welcome to the family, Bazza. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It could mean "is out of view and thus we must trust that it's still there". Of course, the Moon is not always out of view during the day, but, on overcast days, at least, it is. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers.

Mishearing is a phenomenon that I experienced too. When ABBA sang: "send me a letter" I understood: "send me a ladder". I was amused because it reminded me of a German fairy tale, "Rapunzel", in which a girl is imprisoned in a tower, so that she might be happy to receive a ladder.

StuRat (talk) wrote:“It could mean "is out of view and thus we must trust that it's still there"”. That does not convince me, because the position of the moon can be predicted with more precision and more reliability than many other phenomena. Of cause the moon can be hidden by clöuds. But that is usually not the moon's fault. Usually clouds are the result of forces whose origin is on earth. Irene1949 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

About "letter"/"ladder", I also heard the latter. As for "we must trust that it's still there", I'm talking about at an intuitive level, not scientific evidence for it's continued existence. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)