Language desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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 14

Plural of prima ballerina/assoluta

At Talk:Ballerina#Plural there's a brief discussion of the correct plurals of prima ballerina and prima ballerina assoluta. The possibilities I'd have come up with, in my personal order of preference, are:

prima ballerina -

prima ballerinas, prime ballerine

prima ballerina assoluta -

prima ballerinas assoluta, prime ballerine assolute, prima ballerinas assolute, prima ballerina assolutas.

All of these fail in some respects, some more egregiously than others, and all will offend some linguists or native speakers of Italian or English. Are there solutions that will please everybody, or is this just one of those perennial problems that we're stuck with forever (to use a tautology)?

I should mention that my interest in this came from reading Tamara Karsavina, who trained what we term "two Prima Ballerina Assoluta" - that is, not changing the spelling at all in the plural. That's another option, I guess, but it seems even more unorthodox than some of the above. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on two years of college Italian over a decade ago, I would go with prime ballerine and prime ballerine assolute if you want proper Italian. If you want to Anglicanize the terms, use prima ballerinas for the first (no idea on the second). --Nricardo (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's just the problem. I'm not after the proper Italian plural per se (which I know anyway); I'm after a legitimate - or acceptable - English plural (which may happen to be the same as the Italian plural, but not necessarily). The stumbling block with prime ballerine assolute is that many people would not realise they've just encountered a term borrowed from another language, and would pronounce the 1st word the same as prime in prime number or prime real estate, the 2nd word "balla-reen, balla-Rhine, bawler-reen, or bawler-Rhine", and the 3rd word to rhyme with absolute or arse'ole-oot. And we couldn't have that, could we. I've thought of the argument that the people who would not be phased by this term would be the only ones ever likely to encounter it anyway; and conversely, those who would hypothetically have trouble with it would never be likely to encounter it in the first place. That's fine if the world operated according to traditional class divisions. But that's no longer the case. Road diggers are interested in such "higher" things as ballet these days. (Well, some are). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're using such a long string of Italian words, I would suggest using 'prime ballerine assolute', because it's not a common word in English, and you're more or less using it in a code-switch situation. Prima ballerina, on the other hand, is a more common English word - most people know it, and you don't have to know Italian or ballet to know what it means. For that reason, I'd use prima ballerinas. It's inconsistent between phrases, but distinguishing between a more common word and a technical phrase might be the answer. Steewi (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steewi and Nricardo. I've reported back @ Talk:Ballerina#Plural, with some comments on my case for "prima ballerinas assoluta". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

If terms like "2nd millenium", "17th century", and "21st century" are used, why aren't terms like "157th decade" and "203rd decade" used? February 15, 2009 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think that's a silly question. What is the reference point for "157th decade"? Decades within a particular century are counted, but decades since the start of the Common Era are not counted in a continuous series. You might as well ask why today is not referred to as "the 733,422nd day" or whatever. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, astronomers do use Julian days for some purposes (it is currently day 2460610). I don't think anyone's ever seen the point of numbering decades though. Algebraist 09:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Julian date numbering system... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the word "decade" is used in certain contexts, but not in describing a period of the Christian era. Could that be because we can easily distinguish the different characteristics of centuries, much more easily than for decades, which would make everything much more difficult? by the way, I am not at all sure when the concept of a decade became widely used - didn't the Romans use lustrum (a period of five years) more? Strawless (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decade has a link to online etymology dictionary, which claims it was first used for a 10 year period in 1594, but for groups of ten bits for 100 years before that. Steewi (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I see we also have an article on lustrum. Strawless (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As the dispute entered its third decade..." And though I realize it's not used in the sense of time, with regard to the rosary, phrasing like "the third decade" is commonplace. And you've got the olympiads, units of time lasting four years. Similiar, politicians in their fifth term in office. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics could go on forever, and I hope I live long enough to attend the Games of the CLVII Olympiad. But going much (or at all) past 10 when counting decades in a time context doesn't seem to have much (if any) use. You could say we're currently in the 11th decade of the 20th century, if you like. Spike Milligan (God bless him) would probably approve. Anyone who publishes an autobiography part by part, each one announced as "The <ordinal> part of his trilogy", and then follows the 3rd one with "The 4th part of his trilogy" would have no problem with this concept. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Romans, would not they have used decennium rather than decade? The latter is of course late Latin < Greek. As may have been implied above, ten-year bits are just too tiny to subdivide any extended period of time meaningfully. It would be like devising a cataloguing system with categories so narrow that each could hold only ten titles – next to useless. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pad

What is a pad? (a Hangar ?, a place for standing on the tarmac?) In the article Bolshoye Savino Airport I read: "airfield with a small number of fighter and bomber pads" . I want to translate the article for german Wikipedia. --91.61.3.179 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a place where an aircraft takes off or lands. See helipad as an example.--217.171.129.68 (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm wondering now whether I'm right. It could also be a place where an aircraft stands. It's definitely not a hangar though.--217.171.129.68 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German terms seem to be:

Start- / Landebahn (runways), Rollwege (taxiway), Vorfeld (apron) and Abstellflächen (pads). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I will use: Abstellfläche (or Stellfläche) (parking position) --91.61.3.179 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stand" would be a good alternative. Bazza (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Latin translation

Hy there, I need to verify a translation from the "The Twelve Caeasars". It is inside the chapter "Life of Augustus", paragraph 41. A sentence which deals with the required wealth to be a senator. A website which shows Loeb's translation http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html#41 gives the figure "one million two hundred thousand sesterces". I bought the translation by Robert Graves and he uses "12000 gold pieces" (I suppose that "gold pieces" are meant to be Aureus): There is a disparity not only of numbers but also of the coin. I have found the original Latin text:

"Liberalitatem omnibus ordinibus per occasiones frequenter exhibuit. Nam et invecta urbi Alexandrino trumpho regia gaza tantam copiam nummariae rei effecit, ut faenore deminuto plurimum agrorum pretiis accesserit, et postea, quotiens ex damnatorum bonis pecunia superflueret, usum eius gratuitum iis, qui cavere in duplum possent, ad certum tempus indulsit. Senatorum censum ampliavit ac pro octingentorum milium summa duodecies sestertium taxavit supplevitque non habentibus. Congiaria populo frequenter dedit, sed diversae fere summae: modo quadringenos, modo trecenos, nonnumquam ducenos quinquagenosque nummos; ac ne minores quidem pueros praeteriit, quamvis non nisi ab undecimo aetatis anno accipere consuessent. Frumentum quoque in annonae difficultatibus saepe levissimo, interdum nullo pretio viritim admensus est tesserasque nummarias duplicavit."

Now I don't know any Latin but I'm guessing that "sestertium" means "sesterces". Still I want to be really sure. Could someone give me an accurate translation? I only need the relevant sentence. Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think there's no error, since as far as I know a sestertius is one/hundredth of an aureus (think pennies and dollars). Thus 12000 aurei (or dollars) is the same as 1200000 sestertii (or pennies). Loeb is more accurate - you're right that sestertium means sesterces - but I think Loeb was trying to make the figure more accessible (one million pennies is a lot!).

The sentence in question reads (a very literal translation): "He increased the senators' [required] wealth, and he taxed the amount, from [what used to be] eight hundred thousand, of twelve [hundred thousand] and he supplied [for those] who didn't have [the amount]."

СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're meaning Robert Graves. I believe that he has been praised for "making ancient sentences clearer for modern readers" (actually I like his translation better). Thanks for the explanation and the translation. Flamarande (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal de Luxe French translation needed please

I have been doing some work on articles related to this one, but am frustrated how little there is on the English page about this French company, as opposed to the French version (reproduced at Talk:Royal de Luxe). Is there any chance some kind soul could (takes deep breath) translate the whole thing and incorporate it into the English page? Please? Pretty please? My French is poor, to say the least! Many thanks Roisterdoister (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to make a translation request at WP:Translation rather than here. —An gr 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it, but are you sure it's not a copyvio? It reads like a press release or official history of the company. WikiJedits (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I can't really read it so I wouldn't know! I was hoping the French page was plum full of information we could pull across into the English one. If copyvios are a problem and its from the official French website, I could re-jig the English version once someone has translated it. Roisterdoister (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried googling a few of the French phrases, but am only getting the Wikipedia pages back. So I don't know where it's from. But since it's a bit promotional anyway I think it's a good idea if you just use the info (I left a longer message earlier on your talk page). Too bad it's all unsourced! WikiJedits (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message for you too, WikiJedits (great username). Thank-you so much for all your efforts - so quick too. I'm really grateful. Cheers Roisterdoister (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Steaming" rice

I know two distinct ways of cooking rice. One way appears on most rice packages here in the US, and involves adding a measured amount of water, bringing to a boil, and simmering under a tight cover for a certain time. The other way is discussed here and is totally different because the rice never comes in contact with much liquid water, only steam.

My question is about what people call these two methods. In particular, some people ([1], [2], [3]) call the first method "steaming", which seems very confusing to me because it's not "steaming" in the same way as you'd "steam" vegetables or something (that would be the second method).

What names should I use to distinguish between the two methods and be widely understood? —Keenan Pepper 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use ad-hoc terms like "wet steaming" and "dry steaming", although you'd have to explain the terms the first time you use them. Strad (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first method is called "boiling", and the second method is called "steaming". I have no idea why the sites you linked to should describe boiled rice as steamed. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another very good method, which my partner (a Sri Lankan chef) uses all the time and I've now taken to emulating him, is to put a cup of rice in a microwave-safe container, cover with cold water to about one and a half times the height of the rice, and put it uncovered into the microwave for 10 minutes. Stir it, then microwave for another few minutes until it's exactly the texture you like (the timing will vary from microwave to microwave and your preference as to texture). It produces beautiful results. No straining required, and it's quicker and less messy than the pot on the stove method. Basmati rice is the best for this method. It isn't steaming either, but it's something that wouldn't have occurred to me because I've never seen it recommended in cookbooks. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I've not done that before and will give it a try. Now, are you sure about the chef part? ;-) hydnjo talk 23:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeees ... Do you know something I don't? I should clarify: he's from Sri Lanka originally, but he's been an Aussie citizen for half his life now. Does that make any difference? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Er, nah ... Just jokin' around ;-) -hydnjo talk 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite so odd as you think to call the first method mentioned "steaming". The final stage in this method is to turn off the heat and let the rice continue to cook. This is similar to what the French call "steamed" potatoes ("pommes à la vapeur), where the potatoes are boiled and then drained off and left for 10-15 minutes in their own steam/water vapour. So people who are familiar with French cookery terminology would recognise the method as "steamed" rice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of rice, though, this would lead to confusion. I agree with DuncanHill, while owning up to some excitement about the third method just now revealed by JackofOz. My partner being Indonesian, I am disappointed that he has kept this method a secret for the last fifteen years. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, are we getting front row seats to your first fight? And is this the first domestic dispute conducted online? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While having to take issue with your first first, I'd say, "Be our guest(s)!" As to your second question, who is to say? Nicks usually are less than forthcoming about any relationships that might obtain. In a certain other-language wikipedia, there used to be a lady who made a habit of warning us against a certain gentleman. In the end, they were suspected of knowing each other, though not necessarily in the Biblical sense. Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]