Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 September 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.

September 23

Pre-WW1 German physics paper

I need to understand a German physics paper for which an English translation cannot be located.

I have not done too bad so far with Google Translate, but the following paragraph comes out pretty much meaningless (The online Babylon translator is hopeless, as is Bing):

Wir betrachten ein elektrisches Teilchen T, das sich in mehr als 10-4 cm Abstand von den Elektrode befindet. Um den Nachweis zu führen, daß die quantenhafte Struktur der in der Umgebung von T vorhandenen Elektrizitätsmenge keinen merklichen Einfluß auf die Bewegung von T hat, genügt es, zu zeigen, daß die mittlere Wirkung eines Nachbarteilchen auf T um mehrere Zehnerpotenzen kleiner ist als die durch diese Wirkung geändert wird. Denn es kommen für die Strukturwirkung ja nur die nächste benachbarten (10 bis 100) Teilchen in Betracht; die Wirkung der weiter entfernten ist auf alle Fälle dieselbe, als wenn die Elektrizität kontinuierlich verteilt wäre.

Where I have typed "T" above is a character in the publication that seems to be a symbol. It looks like an upside down question mark (?) with two tilds (~), one above and one below.

Can somebody fluent in technical German translate this? Is the symbol something that gets common use in German?

Note: In other parts of this paper, there seems to be a lot of spelling errors. About one per sentence(!!), which causes Google Translate to crunch its gears. 124.178.111.204 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Most unlikely that Schottky's 1914 paper would be full of spelling errors. The above text has considerable flaws and omissions with respect to the 1914 paper, so for example the part "die entsprechende Eigengröße des Teilchens" was completely omitted. The symbol ${\mathfrak {T}}~$ is a Fraktur capital T. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right - I did miss out a phrase. The correct paragraph is:-

Wir betrachten ein elektrisches Teilchen T, das sich in mehr als 10--4 cm Abstand von den Elektroden befindet. Um den Nachweis zu führen, daß die quantenhafte Struktur der in der Umgebung von T vorhandenen Elektrizitätsmenge keinen merklichen Einfluß auf die Bewegung von T hat, genügt es, zu zeigen, daß die mittlere Wirkung eines Nachbarteilchens auf T um mehrere Zehnerpotenzen kleiner ist als die entsprechende Eigengröße des Teilchens, die durch diese Wirkung geändert wird. Denn es kommen für die Strukturwirkung ja nur die nächstbenachbarten (10 bis 100) Teilchen in Betracht; die Wirkung der weiter entfernten ist auf alle Fälle dieselbe, als wenn die Elektrizität kontinuierlich verteilt wäre.

This has been double checked letter by letter with the scan of the original our library made for me.

But Google Translate still doesn't output anything that makes any sense. Can you offer an English translation?

When Google Translate doesn't recognise a word, it leaves it untranslated. More often than not, from the context one can pick the spelling or typing error that threw it off. Whoever typeset the original text sometimes typed an i where an l goes. Sometimes Google does better if double dots are added above certain letters.

124.178.68.147 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"We consider an electric particle T, which is located in more than 10^-4 cm distance from the electrodes. In order to prove that the quantum-like structure of the quantity of electricity existing around T has no noticeable influence on the movement of T, it suffices to show that the average effect of a neighboring particle on T is smaller by several orders of magnitude than the corresponding proper value of the particle, which is changed by this effect. Because for the structural effects only the (10 to 100) nearest neighbor particles come into consideration; the effect of the particles further away is on all accounts the same as if the electricity would be continuously distributed." --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes a bit more sense than Google's effort.1.122.84.64 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You say "Sometimes Google does better if double dots are added above certain letters". This is because double dots are significant in German; known as an umlaut, the double dots indicate a different pronunciation, which is therefore a different word. For example, Schön ("beautiful") is different from Schon ("already"), and the singular of "mother" is distinguished from the plural with an umlaut, Mutter versus Mütter. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I quickly realised that. That is partly what I meant when I said the original paper had a lot of spelling mistakes. The middle of the paper has fewer mistakes such as missing double dots and i where l should be. 120.145.25.4 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Eigengröße = intrinsic size; Elektrizitätsmenge = electric charge ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes more sense in context that Google Translate's best effort: "Self-size" and "quantity of electricity". One word Google T refuses to translate is "influenziert", "influenzierten" and similar, which according to Wictionary means something about affecting an uncharged body, which makes no sense. 120.145.25.4 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think "influenziert" (etc) must be a comparatively recent borrowing - it doesn't appear in the first two dictionaries I looked at - but simply means "influenced". I can't see it in the quote so can't place it in context.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's used several times in this 1914 paper. Here's a sample:-

Fassen wir die Ladung dieser Schicht mit der entgegengesetzten, von ihr auf der Metalloberfläche influenzierten Ladung zusammen, so erhalten wir eine elektrische Doppelschicht, die einen Potential = 4 pi q x d x hervorruft.

Which I have taken to mean:-

Summing the charge of this layer with the reflection induced from it in the metal surface together, we obtain an electric double layer, which results in a potential = 4 pi qxdx.

Does that (somewhat awkward prose)look right to you?120.145.142.112 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is correct. The other point that the paper has missing double dots and i where l should be is certainly an artifact of the scan. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Influenzieren is an old - established German verb. The oldest example of its use I can find is in Johann Adam Schmidt's 1803 book Uber die Krankheiten des Thranenorgans:

... die Energie unkraftig (der Ausserung nach beurtheilt): so darf man sicher darauf rechnen, dass die hypersthenische Lokalreaktion des Thranenschlauches und der Nase nicht hypersthenisirend auf den Organismus influenziert ...

Nearby neighbor

Being a Brit, I would refer to someone living in my neighbourhood as a "near neighbour". I would never use the form "nearby neighbour". But, am I right in thinking that the term "nearby neighbor", and not "near neighbor", is more commonly used in the US? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Both sound valid to me, as a native Usian. We also use the term "nextdoor neighbor", which sometimes doesn't literally mean "the house right next to me" but can also mean "a very close neighbor". --Jayron32 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Next door neighbour" (three words) would be the UK equivalent of that. My reason for asking the original question was this edit, which looked odd to me but can be excused if it's USian. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not go without the adjective there? Just "neighbor" seems fine to me, but like you (though I'm an American), I'd use "near neighbor" if I wanted the qualifier. Deor (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here in the US NE I'd use nearby neighbour, if not next-door neighbour. But it's a pleonasm, as nigh, neigh(bour) and near all come from the same root. "Near neighbour" sounds odd to me. No one talks of a 'near store' or the 'near city'. And yes, I have always spelt it neighbour. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever heard nearby neighbor. (Grew up in a Midwest college town; lived on the west coast for all my adulthood if any.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If any of what? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Adulthood. —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Google ngram shows "near neighbo[u]r" being vastly more common than "nearby neighbo[u]r", although the latter use is growing a bit, especially in US. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Shorter link —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, neither expression sounds normal to me. I'd say that people are either neighbors or they aren't. You can describe a more specific geographical relationship such as a "next-door neighbor", but neither "near" nor "nearby" makes sense with "neighbor" to me. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The me, close neighbor sounds more normal than near neighbor or nearby neighbor. --Xuxl (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as an American I find "near neighbor" to be ambiguous, since I don't know if it means someone who is nearly but not quite a neighbor; someone who is a neighbor and lives quite close to my home, which I would call a "close neighbor" (and if they live immediately adjacent, a "next-door neighbor"); or someone who is a neighbor and happens at the moment to be in my vicinity, which I would call a "nearby neighbor." John M Baker (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My experience is the same as John's (though I'm from Canada). 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In Australian usage, which in most things is a hybrid of British and American usage:-

• "My neighbour blah blah" refers to a person living in a separate house next door or the adjacent flat in a tower block.
• "A neighbour blah blah" refers to a person living in the same street or tower block.

"Near neighbour" would refer to someone living close by but not next door.

"Nearby neighbour" is not normally used.

In Australia many people live in duplexes. A duplex is essentially two houses siamesed together with a common wall. Some people refer to their duplex neigbours as "the other side" meaing the other side of the common wall. A coloqialism is to refer to them as "thumpers" as generally you can't hear your duplex neigbours but teh common wall does transmit low frequency rythmic sounds eg drums in music from stereos, TV sound affects, etc.

120.145.25.4 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In all the places I've lived, I never heard the term "nearby neighbour" until it was mentioned here. You can't walk along your street from your house and reach a point beyond which you can say the residents are no longer neighbours. "Near neighbour" to us is someone whose house is not very far away. When I lived in Australia, at the time when "Real Estate" was advertised in the local paper (we had one, the West Australian, although on Sundays there was an Independent, which may not have carried classified advertising) I saw ads for duplexes and triplexes and I could never work out what these were. I see now that they are semi - detached and terraced homes, separated by a party wall. Within the past few days I've seen luxury newbuild London apartments advertised as "duplex" - can anyone explain what these are? 92.24.105.244 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Most houses in Australia are bungalows. I used to know the origin of this word but I've forgotten - can someone give the derivation? They are also made of wood, at least in the outer suburbs. In the centre of Perth there are old colonial - style houses which are more than one storey. Does the term "duplex" give any indication of the number of floors? 92.24.105.244 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

At least in Australia, the term duplex does not confine the dwellings to one story. They can be two story of even three, though that would be rare. Three story terrace houses (ie three or more dwellings with common walls between each two) are common in city redevelopments. Timber dwellings are very very rare in Western Australia due to the availability of cheap bricks. On the east coast "brick veneer" ie brick outside, inner wall and all partitions fram and clad are common, but extremely rare in Western Australia (due to cheap bricks) where double brick construction rules. Bungalows (houses with verandas) were popular among the financially better off until the 1950's. The cost, a move to smaller blocks, and the advent of airconditioning killed them off. You do see in Western Australia two story dwellings known as "californian bungalows". They were not originally built two story. Due to the double brick construction, you can add a second story in frame & clad construction without overstressing the walls and foundations. It is a popular way to increase the size of the home to cater for teenagers in growing families, add games rooms and home theaters etc. 1.122.189.85 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We have an article Duplex (building) with no mention the Australian usage, but it doesn't seem far removed from the American. I thought a duplex was a type of steam engine, but what do I know? Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

English understanding problem

The world population stated in this article, was it starting from ‘00:00 01/01/1985’ or for during the whole year, from ‘00:00 01/01/1985’ - ‘23:59 31/12/1985’? -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

See World population estimates, especially this sentence: "Taking these numbers at face value would be false precision; in spite of being stated to four, seven or even ten digits, they should not be interpreted as accurate to more than three digits at best." And note that the population estimate in 1985 doesn't match any of the estimates given in the table at World population estimates#1950 to present. Deor (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. So, what do you suggest would be a satisfactory statement? "World population at the year of 1985 was ±____ billion people."? -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue, Russell.mo, is that World Population cannot be estimated, at any time, to more accurately than probably +/- 10,000,000 people at best. That means, we can tell the difference between, say, 7,110,000,000 people and 7,120,000,000 people but not between, say 7,110,000,000 and 7,110,000,001 people. Or, to look at it another way: we do not now, nor ever have had, a reliable means to count and track every single human on the planet. So we cannot be infinitely precise in our measurements. To pretend we are more precise than we can be is called false precision. What some sources to is to interpolate numbers between reliable estimates, a dubious practice that results in false precision.

Just as a completely made-up example, say we know that world population in January, 1980 was 5,000,000,000 people and in January, 1990 it was 6,000,000,000 people. Lets say (just for the sake of this thought experiment) that world population grew linearly between those dates. So, a reasonable interpolation might be that the population was 5,500,000,000 people in 1985, and 5,750,000,000 in July, 1987, and so on. Now, at some point, our interpolations become unreasonable; for example an estimate (by interpolation) of world population, of 5,756,253,127 people at 2:47 GMT on July 23, 1987 would be completely bonkers: Our initial estimates we're using for the endpoints of our interpolation exercise were not precise down to a single person so our interpolations cannot also be that precise. Likewise, nailing down population on a specific date and time is equally silly.

It's like use the odometer on your car to measure the thickness of a human hair. Since the odometer is at best accurate to a tenth of a kilometer (maybe you could guess at the hundreths of a kilometer by figuring out which fraction of a turn the last digit has moved), there's no way you could use that tool to measure the thickness of a hair, which is far smaller, by MANY digits, than a tenth or a hundreth of a mile. Likewise, when the best our estimates can give us is 3 digits of precision, (for a population in the billions, that'd be in the tens-of-millions), pretending that we can then figure out EITHER that the population will be, say 7,334,771,614 in 2016 (which is what the U.S. census bureau estimates state) OR that you can figure out the exact date on which that population will be alive on earth, is just beyond ludicrous. Instead, as Deor notes, we should be speaking in broader terms, where we can nail down world populations to within tens-of-millions and speaking in terms of precision down to the year (and not any specific day within the year) when the population was at that level. --Jayron32 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you both are saying (in a way), what do you suggest I should write then? Before I posted this I wrote: “World population at the year of 1985 was ±4.8 billion people.” Thereafter I started thinking about the sentence e.g., does it mean for the ‘whole year’ or ‘starting of the year’ or ‘ending of the year’… Please modify the en-quoted sentence if you wish in order to make it a sense. A clarification is sought. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be using ± to indicate 'approximately', but I believe that symbol is inappropriate and should be written ~4.8 billion. Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got that from science. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

... and the 4800 million estimate seems to be mid-year. (The English idiom is not "at the year of 1985". I suggest "World population around the middle of 1985 was about 48000 4800 million." You can use "billion" of if your readership is American and younger Commonwealth, but it might be misunderstood by Europeans and others who use long scale.) Dbfirs 12:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think 48 billion is rather excessive. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol. It already feels like there's not enough oxygen. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I corrected up there using strikethrough. As you know, it was intended to be "4800 million" there. I imagine Americans would understand 4800 million as 4.8 billion, though we don't prefer it. But if the target is a global audience, probably better to use 4800 million, which is less ambiguous. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Two typos in one reply! I must check more carefully! Dbfirs 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer Russel.mo's main question, what I would say is "In 1985 the world population was 4800 million." That's of an acceptable level of precision, because it doesn't state a date within 1985 when it reached that population, nor does it pretend to be much more precise than it can be. --Jayron32 16:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks friends! -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

J, the second confusion I had i.e. I find it hard to believe that population counting is an issue in 2015; could've been before but not now? Technology is much more advanced than we could ever imagine; some technologies have come out, some did not, for official and non-official reasons. If we are lacking in calculating human population now, in this day and age, ammm...

Btw, your English is gone awesome! Keep it up! -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's easier to use technology to count the number of mobile phones than to count people. Dbfirs 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In this day an age!?!

An example:

I heard ('Matrix' movie), human body produces 120V; a battery produces the same amount apparently. Would this be relative? Or are you talking about ' radio wave' technology?

Btw, Microsoft Word does [CTRL + H]. Also if you go to a 'My computer's C drive' say 'program files' folder's 'properties' you can find out how many files are there (hidden and not hidden). We also know how to analyse heat signatures.

Jayrons statement only comes true if you are following tax paying system and benifit seeking system records, not to forget hospitals that provides birth certificates. All this only falls in the category of the 'first world countries'...

It is upsetting to know that 'the truth is out there'... I guess, if you guys don't know than it doesn't exist. However, I'll find it hard to believe that it doesn't exist.

One thing is for sure i.e. satellites are capable of searching people via their DNA.

Space Ghost (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence, being a joke, should be in small print. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I could be wrong about everything I'm stating, I still believe it could be possible. I'm keeping an open mind in this 21st century! -- Space Ghost (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How could it be possible to scan someone's DNA from a satellite? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you'd need DNA (blood) first, (process it through the computer too), in order to identify the person thereafter... Who knows what computers can do these days! -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if you knew what a given person's DNA was, how would you detect that specific person from space? It's not like DNA sends out radar signals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[[File:|25px|link=]] That's true. Sorry! I thought I was smart! -- Space Ghost (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You have an unrealistic belief in the ability of satellites. Certain military organisations can't even distinguish between the enemy and allied forces or civilians, even with the best satellite imagery. Dbfirs 07:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dbfirs: Haven't you seen X-Men movies, one of them shows how they identify mutants using satellite, and the latest movie also showed how they identified mutants... My perspective could be wrong but I still would like to keep an open mind... -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)