Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2021 August 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 17

Need some help with Scottish Gaelic

Years ago I made a trip to the Outer Hebrides, where I heard this song Brochan Lom (lyrics on youtube, video with some explanations on youtube). I am about to write an article on it for the German Wikipedia. So my question is: If “brochan” stands for porridge (as explained in the second video: “brochan means prorridge” [37 sec.]), what does “lom” mean/stand for?

Thanks, Brunswyk (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary lists as meanings: "nude, naked; bare, bleak; leafless; threadbare; thin, meagre; net (weight, sum etc)". Most translations on the Web pick "thin"; as such it is more or less a synonym of tana, meaning "thin (not thick; not dense); shallow (water); thin, runny (liquid); flimsy (material)".  --Lambiam 06:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, great help! cheers, Brunswyk (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

In relation to food it means 'plain' i.e. without addition of anything, like sugar, honey, fruit... whatever one might add to porridge to make it less boring- Akerbeltz (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding anything other than salt to porridge is heresy in Scotland. Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe English/Scots speaking Scotland but hardly heresy (not that there is such a thing in cooking :b) amongst Gaelic speakers. Milk, treacle or even beer are not unheard of. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

All things are numbers

Pythagoras and his followers are frequently quoted as having the maxime "All things are numbers" (possibly explicitly articulated at a later stage by someone else describing the Pythagorians). I have tried to dig up the original LatinGreek quote, but have so far drawn a blank. Can anybody help? --T*U (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

IMVHO the original quote would be in Greek, not Latin. :D --CiaPan (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Ooops (deep blush), of course you are right. However, I guess the quote also will have been used later on in Latin, so both versions would be of interest to me. --T*U (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

After having been shown the right path (Greek, not Latin; I'm still blushing), I have actually come up with the Greek original: "Πάντα κατ’ αριθμόν γίγνονται", loosely translated as "Everything is from numbers". I am, however, still also interested in the Latin version, which I am sure must exist in some classical texts somewhere. --T*U (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A paraphrase, "Numeri regunt mundum", has a lot of Google results for Pythagoras.

Thanks, that may be it: "Numbers rule the world". I do, however, not like it too much. The Greek original gives more the feeling that numbers permeates everything, a much more subtle approach. Perhaps the difference between the world approach of the Greeks and the Romans? Anyway, I think I have got what I came for. That is what counts! --T*U (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the ontological statement "Everything comes into being through number" a more accurate translation of the Greek maxim? My attempt at a Latin translation: "Omnia per numerum efferuntur". Since no works by Pythagoras are known and he is not quoted by contemporary authors, I wonder who formulated it.  --Lambiam 20:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

While idly googling around this morning, I came across two papers that discuss the maxime, [1] and [2]. I haven't read them, but two names pop up repeatedly: Philolaus, a Pythagorean, and Aristotle who talks about the Pythagoreans in his Metaphysics. The Philolaus fragment is cited as "DK 44 B4", which would be here on the right page (although shouldn't it be "32 B4" in that edition?). The German translation at the bottom would read in English something like: "And indeed everything that can be known has a number. Because without it nothing can be grasped or known." This is not the maxime quoted by T*U above (edit: actually it is, or at least all of the four words are in there), but it seems to get as close to the original Pythagorean thinking as we may get. Aristotle seems to talk at length about the Pythagoreans and their conception of number and things, but I don't think he's one for simplified four-word maximes. --Wrongfilter (talk)

Edit again, I'm slow at reading Greek. The DK fragment has γιγνωσκόμενα (which would be erkennen in the German translation, i.e. "recognise" or "known"), while T*U's version has γίγνονται (which my dictionary indicates to be "come into being", as translated by Lambiam). That's a very significant difference. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Finally, the original source of the DK fragment would be Stobaeus, Eclogues. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

In spite of their similarity, γιγνώσκω "to know, to perceive" (whence γιγνωσκόμενα "things perceived") and γίγνομαι "to come into being" are not etymologically related. The verb γιγνώσκω stems from the same PIE root as English "know", whereas γίγνομαι stems from the same root as "native". I suppose that it is possible that the ontological maxim arose from the (epistemological) DK fragment through confusion of these verbs.  --Lambiam 08:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wrongfilter and Lambiam for research and analysis. If the "πάντα γα μαν τα γιγνωσκόμενα αριθμόν έχοντι" quote is indeed closest to the "original" version, I feel that the much-quoted Latin rendering "Numeri regent mundum" is even further removed from the spirit of the original "maxim". --T*U (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)